Meeting of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 5:30 PM

Commissioner Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Meeting of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 5:30 PM

Commissioner Pat Kemp Hillsborough County MPO Vice Chair I. Call to Order

Paul Anderson II. Introductions Port Tampa Bay

Councilman Harry Cohen III. Public Comment - 3 minutes per speaker, please City of Tampa

Trent Green IV. Approval of Minutes – January 9, 2019 Planning Commission V. Members’ Interests (2 Minutes Each) Commissioner Ken Hagan Hillsborough County VI. Action Items Mayor Mel Jurado City of Temple Terrace A. TIP Amendment – US 41 CSX Grade Separation PD&E (Sarah McKinley,

Joe Lopano Hillsborough County MPO Staff) Aviation Authority VII. Status Reports Mayor Rick A. Lott City of Plant City A. Application of Demographic Analysis to Pedestrian Safety (Dr. Pei-Sung Councilman Guido Maniscalco City of Tampa Lin, CUTR)

David Mechanik B. Harbour Island Complete Streets (Cal Hardie, City of Tampa) HART

Commissioner C. FSU Shared Mobility Project (Dara Osher, FSU) Kimberly Overman Hillsborough County VIII. Old Business & New Business

Commissioner Mariella Smith A. 2019 Dangerous by Design Report Hillsborough County B. BPAC Offer to Review Trail Modifications Cindy Stuart Hillsborough County School Board C. Tri-County BPAC

Councilman Luis Viera IX. Adjournment City of Tampa

Joseph Waggoner X. Addendum Expressway Authority

Beth Alden, AICP A. MPO Meeting Minutes & Committee Report Executive Director B. Notices of Funding Opportunity C. FDOT Tentative Work Program – Revised Highlights for Hillsborough County D. Commuter Challenge Flyer E. Dangerous by Design 2019 F. Scooter ER Visits G. Tampa Reopens Bid Process for Scooters Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org H. Coast to Coast Relay [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th Floor Tampa, FL, 33602

The full agenda packet is available on the MPO’s website, www.planhillsborough.org, or by calling (813) 272-5940.

The MPO does not discriminate in any of its programs or services. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Learn more about our commitment to non-discrimination.

Persons needing interpreter services or accommodations for a disability in order to participate in this meeting, free of charge, are encouraged to contact Johnny Wong, 813-273-3774 x370 or [email protected], three business days in advance of the meeting. Also, if you are only able to speak Spanish, please call the Spanish help line at (813) 273-3774, ext. 211. Si necesita servicios de traducción, el MPO ofrece por gratis. Para registrarse por estos servicios, por favor llame a Johnny Wong directamente al (813) 273-3774, ext. 370 con tres días antes, o [email protected] de cerro electronico. También, si sólo se puede hablar en español, por favor llame a la línea de ayuda en español al (813) 273-3774, ext. 211.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, materials attached are for research and educational purposes, and are distributed without profit to MPO Board members, MPO staff, or related committees or subcommittees the MPO supports. The MPO has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of attached articles nor is the MPO endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Persons wishing to use copyrighted material for purposes of their own that go beyond ‘fair use’ must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.

If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) COUNTY CENTER BUILDING 601 E. KENNEDY BLVD., 18th Floor

MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2019 MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Forbes called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. in the Plan Hillsborough Room of the County Center Building.

II. INTRODUCTIONS

Members present: Jason Chilson, Jay Collins, Lynda Crescentini, Jonathan Forbes, Tim Horst, Jason Jackman, Richard Johnson, Mara Latorre, John Marsh, Monica Martin, Tony Monk, Karla Price, Diana Ramirez, Jaime Rubscha, Jim Shirk, Holly Simmons, Sally Thompson and Alain Watson

Others present: Wade Reynolds, Johnny Wong, Sarah McKinley and Michele Ogilivie - Hillsborough MPO; Sharon Snyder - Planning Commission; Alex Henry - FDOT; Jason Burgroff, Mike Lamarca, Shane Richesen, Scott Orsini and Walter Mercier – Swamp Mountain Bike Club; and Julie Bond - CUTR

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Lamarca introduced himself as Vice President of the Swamp Mountain Bike Club, a local 501(c)3, whose mission statement is “Through mountain biking, we educate, inspire adventure, build and maintain sustainable trails, and strengthen community through cycling.” He explained that members volunteer thousands of hours to maintain natural surface trails. He offered a few ideas that would improve cycling in Hillsborough County and fit within their goals and mission. The Club feels the County is missing many opportunities to increase the cycling base, increase cycling tourism, and increase recreational biking, that other communities, counties and municipalities enjoy, through inter-connected trail systems.

Mr. Lamarca presented examples of what the rest of Florida has that Hillsborough County doesn’t. The Upper Tampa Trail begins in Hillsborough County, but heads north into Pasco County. Bicyclists can park at Cypress Point Park, follow a trail by the airport and Rocky Point, right out of Hillsborough County, over to Pinellas County. The Lower Hillsborough Wilderness Preserve has trails that may or may not be useable. There isn’t a legal way to cross over Highway 301 from the Morris Bridge or Trout Creek trail to the Fort King Trail, on which you could ride up to the Dead River Trail and into Hillsborough River State Park. A small investment would connect the trail from there up to the Zephyrhills to Dade City Trail. Balm-Boyette Scrub Preserve and Alafia River State Park need to be connected. Currently, the only connection is County Road 672 which is poorly maintained, overgrown and has heavy truck traffic. The Club feels the obvious solution is to create an off-road trail that connects the two, with one road crossing at CR39. The problem is the trail would cross on County Conservation, Sheriff Department, Solid Waste and SWFWMD’s properties.

Mr. Lamarca explained the Florida Interscholastic Cycling Association is promoting bike racing in schools, but they need trails to train, ride and race on. The Club donated $5,000 in 2018 alone to help this organization strengthen community and increase cycling in Florida. Unfortunately, Hillsborough County can’t accommodate or host unless facilities are improved. Other Counties will be hosting hundreds of bicyclists coming to their area, filling hotel rooms, restaurants and eateries for a weekend of cycling because our County has nothing suitable to accommodate the events.

Mr. Reynolds responded Hillsborough County is, with the new All for Transportation tax dollars, working on the SouthCoast Greenway, which will cut over at 19th Street, connecting to the Highway 301 trail, taking bicyclists to Palm River. The County is also working on the PD&E for the trail along the bypass canal which will go to the Hillsborough/Pasco County line. They are also working on the gap along the Upper Tampa Bay Trail.

Ms. Martin added the Greenways Committee will be meeting on January 29th, from 5:30 -7:30 p.m., in the first floor meeting room of the County Center. This advocacy Committee will be discussing updates on the regional network and have a visioning session. She encouraged the Swamp Mountain Bike Club members attend. More information can be found on the Hillsborough County website.

Mr. Horst is in favor of connecting the Balm-Boyette Scrub Preserve and Alafia River State Park and asked if there is a plan in place to do so. Ms. Martin responded this will be discussed at the meeting on January 29th.

Mr. Monk feels this conversation shows the difference between recreational biking, running and other activities done out of cars versus commuting and everyday life bicycling and walking. There can be conflicts along these facilities when someone is bicycling at a high speed where pedestrians are.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion: Approval of the minutes of December 12, 2018. (Monk - Shirk). The motion passed unanimously.

V. MEMBERS’ INTERESTS (2 minutes each)

Mr. Monk attended the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) Board meeting at which Jared Walker, a well-known planner, spoke. His presentation was eloquent, and Mr. Monk encouraged members to watch it when it is available on the HART website. Ms. McKinley stated it will also be available on YouTube.

VI. ACTION ITEMS

A. Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Update (Sarah McKinley, MPO)

Ms. McKinley gave an abbreviated presentation as this was presented in its entirety last month. At the December 2018 meeting, Mr. Ranck requested the motion be moved to this month, after Public Works has had more time to review the documents.

Ms. Martin spoke on behalf of Mr. Ranck who couldn’t attend tonight’s meeting. Public Works did approve the MMLOS but had comments, which Mr. Patrick will provide to Ms. McKinley. Mr. Monk asked why the Committee didn’t act on this last month. Ms. McKinley reminded him that the County wanted more time to review the documents and provide comments. Mr. Monk thanked her for the reminder because he remembered being very pleased with the presentation.

Motion: Recommend approval of the MMLOS update to the MPO Board (Monk – Collins). The motion passed unanimously.

B. 2019 Safety Performance Targets (Johnny Wong, MPO)

Dr. Wong presented the 2019 Safety Performance Targets. These performance management measures originate from MAP-21 legislation, which requires the MPO to track performance for five safety measures and set targets for the coming calendar year. The federal reporting requirements are that these measures and targets have to be calculated using a five year rolling average, ending prior to the year the targets are due. For calendar year 2019 the data must span from 2014-2018 and the MPO will have to project the five year rolling average from 2015- 2019.

MAP-21 requires both State DOTs and MPOs to report performance and set targets every year and this is the second year the MPO is doing this. In August 2017, FDOT set all statewide safety targets to zero and in August 2018, they reaffirmed that they will be setting all targets to zero. By February 27th, the MPO will have to establish safety targets for calendar year 2019 and from then on, every time the MPO adopts or amends the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the 2019 performance measures and targets will have to appear in those documents. By the end of 2020, FDOT will review the targets and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will review FDOT’s targets to determine if “significant progress” has been made toward meeting them.

Dr. Wong explained how the targets were chosen and why. In 2014, the MPO created the Imagine 2040 LRTP and did two rounds of scenario planning. The first round looked at existing investments and performance and forecasted the number of crashes the area would have in 2040 at the same level of funding. At the status quo level of investment (2014 numbers) crashes would be reduced by 10%. The second phase of outreach looked at scenarios for funding. The MPO asked the public to identify the level of performance they desire in each of the program areas by telling us whether they would invest at the low, medium or high level. For reducing crashes and vulnerability, the public wanted something more than the medium level but less than the high level. The MPO settled on the funding scenario called Level 2.5. If the MPO had a funding source equivalent to a 1 cent sales tax, they could invest in safety programs and projects that reduce the number of crashes we had in 2014 by 21 – 50% by 2040. It is worth noting that achieving a 51% crash reduction is the upper limit in the range, and therefore is the most aggressive estimate. To meet that goal over the next 20 years, we need to reduce fatal/injury/bike-pedestrian crashes by 3.4% each year.

The safety treatments shown on this slide are how the MPO achieves the public’s preferred level of performance. If the MPO had a funding source equivalent to a 1 cent sales tax, a portion of that money could supplement other funding sources to pay for these improvements. This is how we might reach the desired reduction by 2040. Funding to pay for those improvements is what is reflected in the All for Transportation distribution allocation, shown on the slide. These improvements would be the result of 2014 levels of safety spending and the 27% of the surtax general purpose fund. That amount of money would be enough to fund these improvements over a 20 year period.

In November, voters signaled their priorities and passing that amendment might signal a turning point for safety performance. Complete Streets is one example of the kind of improvements that could be funded. With the surtax, priority corridors and some high-crash corridors could become complete streets. Dr. Wong provided an update on Fletcher Avenue, between Nebraska and 50th Street, since it was re-engineered. Over 20 years, 450 miles of Complete Street treatments could be funded, meaning somewhere 20-22 miles per year.

The safety targets the MPO is proposing for 2019 is 163 annual fatalities, which is 3.4% less than the 2018 fatality total of 169. If the trends continue each year, this might cut the numbers in half by 2040. The first required target proposed is 188 fatalities, calculating on a five-year rolling average. The number turns out to be greater than the previous two five-year averages, but that’s because the 2016 fatality total was 226. This number is going to keep the average high for both this cycle and the next. Next year, when the MPO brings new targets to the Committees for adoption, the total will still be high (181) because the five-year rolling average will be calculated using 2016-2020 data. After that, the average will drop considerably.

The target for serious injuries is 1,354 and non-motorized fatalities & serious injuries combined target is 229. The rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is 1.33 and serious injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is 9.55.

Discussions followed regarding what the definition is for serious injuries (incapacitated); what the website is for this data (Dr. Wong stated he uses an internal tool through FDOT that may not be accessible to the public. Mr. Reynolds stated the Fires website is publicly accessible); what was the 2018 target (Dr. Wong stated 2018 targets were established as a baseline and are status quo. Mr. Forbes stated the 2018 target was 169. Dr. Wong stated that is the rolling average and he thought the target was in the 180s); the opinion that these targets are too high and should be set at zero; these targets give the impression the MPO is okay with 163 people dying (Dr. Wong feels the MPO has to link current performance to investment to expected outcome. It is unrealistic to set the expected outcome to zero. The numbers are set for transparency because when the public sees a poorly performing corridor, the MPO uses that for justification to set the safety dollars to affect change.); and how does population growth factor into the model (it is somewhat reflected in the fatalities and injuries totals already because they are using a five-year rolling average).

Motion: Recommend approval of 2019 Safety Performance Targets (Shirk – Marsh). All but one member were in favor.

C. Attendance Review and Declaration of Vacant Seats (Wade Reynolds, MPO)

Mr. Reynolds made requested changes to the attendance review handout. Two members have exceeded the number of missed meetings allowed and the Committee can declare these seats vacant (Mr. Payor and Ms. Coleman). The Bylaws state if a member misses three meetings in a row, their seat can be vacated. Mr. Payor and Ms. Coleman both missed eight meetings last year and one member doesn’t feel they are interested in serving any longer. Mr. Reynolds stated he knows one member has had extenuating circumstances. Mr. Monk said members can be rolled off and will be allowed to reapply if there is a vacant position.

Motion: Mr. Monk motioned to have Mr. Reynolds contact the two members (Payor and Coleman) to determine if they wish to continue serving on the BPAC Committee (Monk – Collins). A discussion ensued whether Citizens-at-Large have alternates (they don’t). Mr. Forbes stated he transitioned off as the Temple Terrace representative so he’ll need to be reappointed by the City. The motion passed unanimously.

D. Election of Officers (Wade Reynolds, MPO)

Mr. Reynolds stated the current officers are Chair Forbes, Vice Chair Monk and Member-at- Large Shirk. Mr. Forbes was elected in August 2018. All Officers nominated themselves to continue to serve in their current positions.

Motion: Re-elect Officers to continue to serve in their current positions (Forbes/Monk/Shirk – Collins). The motion passed unanimously.

VII. STATUS REPORTS

A. How the Media Fails Bicyclists (Julie Bond, CUTR)

Ms. Bond presented Media Framing of Fatal Bicycle Crashes in Hillsborough County: A Critical Discourse Analysis. There is an one hour webinar on the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) website for more in-depth detail (https://www.cutr.usf.edu/2018/09/cutr- webcast-media-framing-of-fatal-bicyclist-crashes/). After watching the webinar, Angie Schmitt with Streetsblog wrote a story titled “Conclusive Evidence: How the Media Fails Bicyclists”, a copy of which was attached to the agenda. Lorraine Monteagut and Erin Sheffels were the other research authors. Ms. Bond will be presenting this at the Transportation Research Board conference in Washington, DC next week. This research was funded by the National Center for Transit Research, which is part of CUTR. The BikeWalk Tampa Bay group started talking about doing this research over four years ago but there wasn’t funding.

The research objective was to examine the linguistic choices that frame relationships between bicyclists and other parties involved in fatal crash events. Textual data was collected from 189 media reports of the 94 bicyclist traffic fatalities that occurred from January 2009 to June 2018 in Hillsborough County. The critical discourse analysis (CDA) qualitative method is used to analyze oral and written communication.

Ms. Bond stated the site of the study is Hillsborough County. She showed a graph of bicyclist fatalities compared to the Hillsborough County population. She also presented graphs detailing bicyclist deaths by sex and age, as well as maps with bicycle fatality crash locations and locations of the bicyclist’s fatality residences. She explained how they took a closer look at language in news reports. Language is taken for granted, but it’s more important than it seems. Language shapes our perceptions of reality. Ms. Bond discussed framing and bicycle identities and explained that episodic framing is used to report specific events and concrete circumstances; thematic framing presents news that accentuates political issues and events in some general context, reflecting collective evidence. She explained how hidden power is exercised through “taken-for-granted” language uses and universal “common sense” practices.

Ms. Bond discussed the data collection, including the database searches and terms searched. She explained the coding and analysis used and the results. She also discussed grammar and agency, which is the conscious action by a clear actor. It is communicated in language through grammatical structure.

In addition, Ms. Bond discussed bicyclist class versus bicyclist safety. A relationship exists between unsafe bicycling behaviors and lower-class identity markers, while an inverse relationship exists between safe bicycling behaviors and higher-class identity markers. She highlighted the elements of the story and the researcher’s recommendations. She briefly discussed social capital via family networks and the deep-seated grief that is suffered by real people when bicyclists die and leave beloved kin behind.

Ms. Bond discussed safety education and bicyclist advocacy. She highlighted linguistic strategies for reporting bicyclist deaths, such as reframing the bicyclist to shift from blaming the individual toward a focus on social action and policy reform, more thematic frames to humanize bicyclists and contextualize traffic events in law, infrastructures, attitudes, environments, etc. and active versus passive constructions to clarify agency and responsibility. Ms. Bond also discussed future research.

Discussions were held regarding if this study included broadcast media (yes); are there similar studies being conducted in cities where bicycling is more accepted, such as Seattle (yes, Texas A&M is currently conducting a similar study and their research and findings are similar. There is also a study by a person in Canada titled “How to Get Away with Murder); does Ms. Bond feel it is intentional or ignorance in respect to the writing (Ms. Bond feels it’s not intentional after her conversations with some of the writers); how do you re-educate (Ms. Bond is hoping to create a workshop for the media); is there other information you would like to put into this report, such as police reports, to determine if the language from these reports is being pulled over to the news articles (yes, but they don’t have the time or funding); are there other studies this report is modeled after (yes, there are studies in the other health sciences on this); Mr. Collins would love to see this analysis run on bike share riders; Mr. Monk feels agency is being taken away from not only bicyclists, but automobile drivers as well; the fact that when someone dies on a roadway, people automatically blame the driver, not the flawed roadway system; the desire to see this study conducted on vehicle versus vehicle crashes, without fatalities; the socio- economic element; whether or not the victim was wearing a seatbelt automatically implies if they are or aren’t a smart driver; and the feeling the media is attempting to educate the public by writing the details they do.

B. Channelside Drive Design Project (Paula Flores, GPI) – This report was tabled due to Ms. Flores’ absence.

VIII. OLD BUSINESS & NEW BUSINESS

A. Courtney Campbell Residential Issues (Holly Simmons)

Ms. Simmons asked what restrictions or requirements apply to the new business changing the land use when a developer comes in and replaces an existing property? An example she presented is along the Courtney Campbell Causeway where a restaurant was and is now being redeveloped as a 350 unit apartment complex named the Seazen Apartments. The restaurant was only opened during times when not many people were using the bike trail along the Causeway. Now the trail crosses over the right turn only lane, where motorists are turning in at a fairly high rate of speed, and the exit driveway, where the bicyclist and pedestrians can’t see vehicles exiting, due to shrubbery.

Mr. Monk suggested Ms. Simmons contact the City of Tampa as the developer is not responsible for the continuity of the system. Whether it is a City or FDOT issue depends on where the conflict occurs. Mr. Henry, Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator for FDOT, stated he will look into the issue.

Mr. Collins stated he finds this interesting as SR60 and the driveway were there before the trail was built. He asked Mr. Marsh if the road going into the apartment complex is public or private. Mr. Marsh stated he will need to look into that. He will also find out who owns the piece of land with the shrubs, so they can be contacted to trim the shrubs as they are a visibility issue. Ms. Ramirez stated there is a monthly meeting between FDOT and Hillsborough County at which issues like this are addressed.

Mr. Monk stated there isn’t a site visibility requirement in the green book for bicycles and pedestrians because it assumed it will be covered under the design for automobiles. In this case, drivers are only looking to the left, as they are pulling out onto a divided roadway so there isn’t a site distance requirement looking right. Ms. Ramirez stated the green book is very clear on site distance requirements and doesn’t differ between cars and bicyclists. Mr. Monk stated the City and County only require site distance for oncoming vehicles. Mr. Marsh replied that is not how the City does it. The City requires the proper diagram. Drivers need to look to the right, regardless of whether vehicle traffic is coming from the right or not.

Mr. Collins suggested adding rumble strips to the right turn only lane, to slow traffic coming into the apartment area.

Mr. Reynolds will provide Ms. Simmons with the contact information for the City, County and FDOT staff.

New Business

Mr. Forbes stated he was approached last week at Curtis Hixon Park by a person asking if there is a minimum or maximum number of bike racks installed in city parks. Ms. Price said this has been discussed in the past, and she’ll look into it.

Mr. Reynolds reminded members of the Gasperilla Children’s Bike Rodeo on Saturday, January 12th, from 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m., at Bayshore and Rome. BPAC members will be there helping fit bicycle helmets and conduct the safety course. Ms. Rubscha asked if bike lanes are being installed for the Parade. Mr. Reynolds will find out and let members know.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item TIP Amendment – US 41 CSX Grade Separation PD&E (440746-1) Presenter

Sarah McKinley, MPO Staff Summary The following item is an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The amendment would add $1.45 million in funds for Project Development & Environmental (PD&E) for the grade separation project at US 41 and the CSX tracks near Causeway Blvd. This project has had Preliminary Engineering (design) funding, and is currently in PD&E. Right-of-way is funded in FY 2020-2022, with construction expected in 2026.

This project is listed in the current Imagine 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a major capacity project for economic growth and is a priority of the MPO. According to the Freight Investment Program Technical Memorandum for the LRTP, this crossing has 31 trains per day, with an average delay of 8–10 minutes per crossing. This project is considered a major investment to relieve congestion for highway and freight traffic, is located within the fastest growing portion of Hillsborough County, and is of regional significance.

Recommended Action

Recommend approval of the TIP Amendment to the MPO Board.

Prepared By Sarah McKinley, MPO Staff Attachments TIP Comparative Report

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

FDOT 5 Year TIP Hillsborough County, District 7

HIGHWAYS

Status: Adopted Adopted Date: 06/12/2018 Item Number: 440749 1 Description: US 41/SR 45/S 50TH ST @ CSX GRADE SEPARATION SOUTH OF CAUSEWAY BLVD LRTP: Minimize congestion, p. 163 Related Project: 4407491 Extra Description: FROM AUSTIN ST TO N OF 21ST AVE S Project Length: 2.559 *SIS* Type of Work: NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACNP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,940,335 $60,940,335 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,940,335 $60,940,335 P D & E - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DIS $1,393,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,393,632 Initial DIH $39,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 Totals: $1,432,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,432,632 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $154,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,601 Initial DIH $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Initial DIS $106,368 $0 $6,593,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,699,662 Initial DS $27,496 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,496 Totals: $288,465 $1,000 $6,593,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,882,759 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACFP $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 Initial DIH $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 Initial DIS $0 $0 $0 $4,500,000 $15,000,000 $0 $0 $19,500,000 Initial GMR $0 $0 $0 $14,000,000 $18,500,000 $0 $0 $32,500,000 Totals: $0 $0 $10,000,000 $18,500,000 $33,501,000 $0 $0 $62,001,000 Item 440749 1 Totals: $1,721,097 $1,000 $16,593,294 $18,500,000 $33,501,000 $0 $60,940,335 $131,256,726 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status: Amended Amendment Date: 09/5/2018 Amendment Number: 37 Item Number: 440749 1 Description: US 41/SR 45/S 50TH ST @ CSX GRADE SEPARATION SOUTH OF CAUSEWAY BLVD LRTP: Pg. 170 Project ID 1100 Related Project: 4407491 Extra Description: FROM AUSTIN ST TO N OF 21ST AVE S Project Length: 2.559 *SIS* Type of Work: NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACNP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,940,335 $60,940,335 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,940,335 $60,940,335 P D & E - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DIH $39,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 Initial DIS $1,393,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,393,632 Added ACFP $0 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000 Totals: $1,432,632 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,732,632 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $154,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,601 Initial DIH $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Initial DIS $106,368 $0 $6,593,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,699,662 Initial DS $27,496 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,496 Totals: $288,465 $1,000 $6,593,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,882,759 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Added ACFP $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Totals: $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACFP $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 Initial DIH $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 Initial DIS $0 $0 $0 $4,500,000 $15,000,000 $0 $0 $19,500,000 Initial GMR $0 $0 $0 $14,000,000 $18,500,000 $0 $0 $32,500,000 Totals: $0 $0 $10,000,000 $18,500,000 $33,501,000 $0 $0 $62,001,000 Item 440749 1 Totals: $1,721,097 $1,451,000 $16,593,294 $18,500,000 $33,501,000 $0 $60,940,335 $132,706,726

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Application of Demographic Analysis to Pedestrian Risk Presenter

Dr. Pei-Sung Lin (CUTR) Summary University of South Florida researchers have developed a demographics-based methodology that identifies areas that possess a combination of "preconditions" for greater pedestrian hazard, such as areas with a large percentage of residents living below the established poverty level, low levels of car ownership, high transit use, etc. This methodology should also produce recommendations for not only engineering countermeasures, such as roadway lighting and signalized crosswalks, but also for pedestrian safety education/outreach plans that will find acceptance by a given area's residents. Recommended Action

None, for informational purposes only.

Prepared By Wade Reynolds, AICP Attachments

None

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Harbour Island Complete Streets Presenter

Cal Hardie, City of Tampa Staff

Summary Staff will provide an overview of the complete street improvements planned for Harbour Island. The area serves both commercial and residential uses. This project will improve safety and traffic flow for motorists, bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed improvements include: Knights Run Ave from S Harbour Island Blvd to Beneficial Drive; Beneficial Drive from Knights Run Ave to Channelside Dr. are both four-lane divided local collector roads with posted speeds of 30 MPH and 40 MPH, respectively and average daily traffic volume of approximately between 15,380 to 16,560 vehicles per day. KNIGHTS RUN AVE:

• Rehabilitating of existing roadway.

• Implementing of traffic calming measures for safety enhancements by installing two raised pedestrian crosswalks AND narrowing the travel lanes to ten (10) feet.

• Installing bicycle lanes. BENEFICIAL DRIVE:

• Rehabilitating of existing roadway from Knights Run Ave to the Beneficial Bridge.

• Installing bicycle lanes and adding a 2-ft buffer to the proposed bicycle lane on the Beneficial Bridge. • Narrowing the travel lanes to ten (10) feet and reducing the posted speed limit from 40 MPH to 30 MPH. This Project is unrelated to the Wastewater Pipeline Project but may be impacted by the timing. Prepared By

Wade Reynolds, AICP Plan Hillsborough Attachments planhillsborough.org [email protected] Harbour Island Fact Sheet 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

September 2018 Harbour Island Complete Streets

Project Description:

Knights Run Ave from S Harbour Island Blvd to Beneficial Drive; Beneficial Drive from Knights Run Ave to Channelside Dr. are four-lane divided local collector roads with posted speeds of 30 MPH and 40 MPH, respectively and average daily traffic volume of approximately between 15, 380 to 16,560 vehicles per day. The area serves both commercial and residential uses. This project will improve safety and traffic flow for motorists, bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed improvements include: KNIGHTS RUN AVE:  Rehabilitating of existing roadway.  Implementing of traffic calming measures for safety enhancements by installing two raised pedestrian crosswalks, AND narrowing the travel lanes to ten (10) feet.  Installing bicycle lanes.

BENEFICIAL DRIVE:  Rehabilitating of existing roadway from Knights Run Ave to the Beneficial Bridge.  Installing bicycle lanes and adding a 2-ft buffer to the proposed bicycle lane on the Beneficial Bridge.  Narrowing the travel lanes to ten (10 feet) and reducing the posted speed limit from 40 MPH to 35 MPH. PROJECT LOCATION

Page 1 of 2

CONCEPT PLANS:

Summary of Project Costs and Schedule:

Schedule Phase Firm Amount Start Finish In House Spring Winter Design N/A 2018 2018 Spring Spring Construction In House 351,089 2019 2019

Page 2 of 2

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item FSU Shared Mobility Design and Policy Studio Project Presenter(s) Dara Osher, Florida State University Masters Candidate Department of Urban and Regional Planning Summary The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission has engaged the FSU Department of Urban and Regional Planning in a Shared Mobility Design and Policy Studio Project. This project may also be helpful to the MPO. Pursuant to state statute, Florida’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must now plan for and include policies related to electric and autonomous vehicles in future updates to Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). The use of autonomous vehicles to support public transportation needs in Florida is an emerging issue. The integration of these technologies could challenge a range of current planning assumptions, from the municipal ownership of public transportation assets to the local land-use plan policies required to accommodate such use. Much of what will ultimately be required to re- envision urban design and modify infrastructure plans and land development regulations to accommodate autonomous transit vehicles is applicable today as communities begin to experience a rise in shared mobility options. Questions like where and how will passengers be picked up and dropped off, where shared use vehicles can be stored, and in what ways will our cityscapes need to change to accommodate these and other related needs call out for immediate solutions. These solutions, while in direct response to the rise in commercial ride-sharing and other shared mobility options, will also help with the ultimate accommodation of autonomous vehicles, especially with respect to transit.

The FSU Department of Urban and Regional Planning proposes to develop a series of urban design templates and accompanying policy and planning guidance to facilitate and incentivize urban adaptation for shared mobility solutions and autonomous transit services. This project will be undertaken as a graduate capstone studio project to be conducted by second year planning students. The project will include the following components:

1) Conduct research on design guidance for accommodating ride hail, rideshare and mass transit drop off/pick up, livery/rally points, fueling and parking. 2) Select four design contexts: Urban stadium, urban downtown, suburban mall/shopping center, and rural destination aggregator. Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org 3) Identify relevant case studies for each context. [email protected] 4) Identify local ordinances and plan policies specific to each case study that 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd may either inhibit or promote shared mobility and the researched design 18th floor standards or retrofits. Include recommendations to sunset or modify Tampa, FL, 33602

administrative or policy barriers and to incorporate facilitating policies into existing plans, regulation and ordinances. 5) Prepare conceptual urban design templates for the four design contexts. 6) Prepare a summary report on policy recommendations for implementation.

The FSU team would like to present preliminary project concepts to MPO Committees for stakeholder feedback.

Recommended Action None. For information only. Prepared By Allison Yeh, MPO Staff Attachments None

MPO Board Meeting of Tuesday, January 8, 2019

CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & INVOCATION

The MPO Chairman, Commissioner Les Miller, called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m., led the pledge of allegiance and gave the invocation. The regular monthly meeting was held at the County Center in the 26th Floor Conference Room.

The following members were present:

Councilman Harry Cohen, Trent Green, Commissioner Ken Hagan, Mayor Mel Jurado, Commissioner Pat Kemp, Charles Klug for Paul Anderson, Mayor Rick Lott, Councilman Guido Maniscalco, David Mechanik, Commissioner Les Miller, Commissioner Kimberly Overman, Janet Scherberger for Joe Lopano, Commissioner Mariella Smith, and Councilman Luis Viera.

The following members was absent:

Joe Waggoner and Cindy Stuart.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 4, 2018

A motion was made by Commissioner Kemp to approve the minutes of December 4, 2018. The motion was seconded by David Mechanik and carried unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Chris Vela requested for board members to take note and solidarity with the voters on Commissioner Stacy White’s lawsuit to stop the voter-approved transportation tax. He has spoken with people from different political backgrounds and different ages and many of them want to see changes on our roads, roads made safer, and to have choices to get to places. The infrastructure in our County is decades behind. He expressed concerns regarding FDOT’s Tentative Work Program to include additional lanes in Seminole Heights and informed members to look hard at information when they receive it from the State.

COMMITTEE REPORTS, ONLINE COMMENTS Ms. Gena Torres, Executive Planner, provided a summary of the committee reports, email and Facebook comments received from citizens.

The committees elected officers of officers in December and the Citizen’s Advisory Committee Chair is Bill Roberts, Rick Fernandez is the Vice Chair, and Nicole Rice is the Officer at Large. The Technical Advisory Chair is Jeff Sims, the Vice Chair is Mike Williams, and the Officer at Large is Amber Dickerson. The Vice Chair of the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordination Board is Gloria Mills and the Officer at Large is Craig Forsell.

The committees approved and forwarded for MPO Board approval the following: MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 1

o FDOT Tentative Work Program & MPO Comments; o It’s Time Tampa Bay Survey Results & Recommendations on the Consent Agenda. The Policy Committee discussed the responses at length, noting the variations of opinions among demographic segments and geographic sub-areas of the county; there was a long discussion on the need for more kinds of highway capacity expansion projects than were asked about in the survey. The topic will be explored later this spring during the traffic modeling forecasting for the 2045 Transportation Plan; o Also on the Consent Agenda, the Health in All Policies Resolution; o The MPO sponsor a comprehensive safety audit, addressing speed management, focusing on the severe crash corridors in Hillsborough County; o The Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board approved a Bylaws Amendment to include membership of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities as required by the Florida Administrative Code; o The Policy Committee also discussed a Bylaws Amendment and adding to establish a code of conduct for MPO advisory committee members similar to the Planning Commission’s and the Florida Senate’s.

The committees also received updates on Tampa Bay Next, Resilient Tampa Bay, and Smart Cities.

The School Transportation Working Group celebrated its last meeting and members shared successes. The group also discussed their transition to working with the FDOT Community Traffic Safety Team.

The following people’s email remarks were provided to board members with their meeting material:

o Robert Sawallesh shared a student’s concern walking to the USF medical campus that requires crossing two busy intersections and drivers rarely watching for pedestrians. Mr. Sawallesh added that the Department of Veterans' Affairs provided $1.4 million to Hillsborough County in August 2018 for a traffic signal. The county set a deadline to complete the project mid-2021, and he requested this be fast-tracked.

o Mike Lamarca wrote to thank FDOT for joining him on an excursion through south county, sharing his concerns particularly with vegetation overgrowth on narrow shoulders.

o Eric Goldstein thanked the County for their help addressing traffic concerns in Westchase.

o Mauricio Rosas commented on speeding on Highland and the need for the FDOT Heights Mobility Study to identify time lines for implementation.

o Bob McKay thanked Beth Alden for an excellent presentation to the Chamber.

The following people made remarks on Facebook:

o Robin Miller asked that the CSX rail lines be purchased to link USF and Downtown and requested not to fund Tampa Bay Next, calling it fake BRT Highway Widening.

o Michelle Cookson posted and wanted her comments read in full at the meeting regarding agenda item IV.B. She asked the MPO fight the lawsuit filed by Commissioner Stacy White and represent the citizens desire for equitable, multimodal and safe transportation.

There were no questions following the committee reports and online comments.

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 2

(Councilman Viera arrived at 9:11 a.m.)

CONSENT AGENDA

A. Committee Appointments B. It’s Time Tampa Bay Survey Findings & Guidance for the 2045 Plan – approved by Policy Committee C. Health in All Policies Resolution D. Initiate a Comprehensive Safety Audit Addressing Speed Management – approved by Policy Committee

A motion was made by Councilman Maniscalco to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kemp and carried unanimously.

ACTION ITEMS

A. FDOT Tentative Work Program & MPO Comments

Mr. Stephen Benson, FDOT, gave a presentation highlighting changes, since last fall, to the Tentative Work Program for FY2020 – FY2024, which covers project phases and activities scheduled from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2024. Board members were provided a copy of the Work Program.

During the presentation, Councilman Cohen wanted to know why the Platt Street Bridge over the Hillsborough River and the Columbus Drive Bridge over the Hillsborough River were being scheduled for replacement, since work was recently done on both bridges.

Mr. Benson stated that they were locally requested projects requested by Hillsborough County. Ms. Alden responded to Councilman Cohen’s inquires and stated that the MPO received a letter last Spring from Hillsborough County with a list of funding requests. Hillsborough County staff indicated that the repairs that were done have a limited lifespan and there needs to be a more enduring investment in the bridges that will make it worthwhile to look at possible replacing them and rebuilding them with a historic character. Based on that request, the bridges were included in the priority list and FDOT is responding to that priority list. The repairs have a fifteen-year lifespan, it has been five years, it will be five years for the feasibility study, then a decision will have to be made on the repairs, the cost and funding. This is part of the long- range planning process.

The total funding for the five-year work program is $1.6 Billion over five years. The public hearing on the document was held December 17 – 21 in an online format. On December 20, a work program open house was held at the FDOT office. Public comments were due to FDOT by December 31. MPO objections had to be submitted by January 28 so that they could be submitted with the Tentative Work Program packet to the Legislature and to the Administration for review. The Work Program will be effective July 1, 2019.

Following the presentation, Commissioner Overman inquired about “preserving the system, which usually requires resurfacing and restoration, as well as rehabilitation, and in areas of managing congestion in the work program” she wants to make sure that an opportunity is not missed to include transit corridors for the increased opportunity to invest in HART’s transit system. In the past, she has seen roads that have been resurfaced without adding safety features that is critical to the safety of pedestrians and opening the corridor to allow for transit to travel through where it becomes a preference to travel, rather than travel on a road in a single occupancy vehicle. In any of the construction projects, as well as the PD&Es, she requested that focus, in coordination with HART’s expansion of their transit system, be considered in any projects that are in the plan. Mr. Benson stated that the document was developed prior to November and there will be changes coordinated with the local governments and transit agencies and projects will be shifted around.

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 3

Commissioner Overman also inquired about the traffic lights on Florida Avenue at Wilder and Idlewild. Mr. Benson stated that the projects for 2019 would not have been included in the Work Program that was distributed and they will be completed before 2020.

Commissioner Overman stated that speeds need to be lowered all through the urban corridors and a study is being done soon on safety and speeds and there is a problem with speed, specifically in Tampa, and in some areas in Brandon, Riverview, and Fish Hawk where reduction of speed would add safety.

Commissioner Kemp wanted to know why the Tampa Bypass Canal project was deferred. Mr. Benson stated that the PD&E is underway, it was funded during the last cycle, and the County is moving ahead with it. The PD&E will not be completed by the time the schedule of the design is completed.

Commissioner Kemp has been tracking Hwy 41 and the bridge to bypass the CSX tracks and did not see it listed. Mr. Benson stated that it was a previous project and there was not change to it. It is still listed in the Work Program.

Commissioner Kemp wanted to confirm that the existing roadway is being utilized for I-275 north of Downtown to Fowler and no additional roadway is being added. Mr. Benson noted that from the downtown interchange up to the Hillsborough Avenue exit that there is no right of way expansion. For the Section 7 PD&E, it goes out to Bearss, and there will be a public hearing in the Spring. This is some right of way at Bearss for ponds, but there is nothing in the historic district, or south of the river that would be right of way acquisition. Commissioner Smith inquired about the same section and wanted to know if the additional capacity riding. She wanted to know if the Work Program was approved, are toll lanes being approved for the section. Mr. Benson stated that they were not.

Councilman Cohen inquired about the deferment of storm water work on Dale Mabry and Henderson and Neptune. The City is in the middle of a stormwater upgrade there. Mr. Benson stated they are coordinating with the City and it is additional work that what was anticipated, and it will take longer to finish the design and begin construction; therefore, the schedule was adjusted.

Since the board did not have any comments to transmit, no action was necessary on the agenda item.

B. MPO Representation in White v. Hillsborough County et. al

Councilman Viera informed the Board that he is contracting the law firm that is involved in the litigation; therefore, he will have to abstain from the vote.

Mr. Cameron Clark, MPO Attorney, addressed the Board regarding legal representation and the position the board would like to take on the Stacy White v. Hillsborough County et.al. lawsuit. As of the date, the lawsuit was filed, to file an answer on time, an answer would have to been filed prior to the January MPO Board meeting; however, it was not necessary because the plaintiff’s attorney agreed to extend the MPO’s time to respond until Friday, January 11. During discussion, the Attorney from the County, Alan Zimmet, discussed the idea of representing the MPO if the Board takes the same position as the County to oppose the lawsuit to answer the complain with general denials to the argument against the plaintiff, and there would be no charge to the MPO. The Tax Collector, the Property Appraiser, and the Department of Revenue are answering the complaint by taking no position on the plaintiff’s complaint and abiding by the ruling of the court, which effectively remaining neutral as to the outcome. There is discussion that one or two of the defendants are filing a motion to dismiss to be removed from the lawsuit. Most of the defendants are answering the complaints with general denials. Mr. Rob Brazel, Hillsborough County Attorney’s Litigation Chief, was present in the audience to answer questions regarding the lawsuit.

(Mayor Rick Lott arrived at 9:37 a.m.)

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 4

Councilman Cohen wanted to know if there are other entities like the MPO that have retained separate Counsel in the legal matter. Mr. Clark stated that each entity has its own counsel and was unaware of any defendant that shared counsel. Councilman Cohen wanted to in a shared counsel arrangement, would the MPO be subsumed by the County or a partner with the County in the representation. Mr. Clark stated that the County has already filed its answer of its general denials. The MPO is its own defendant, but to the extent that its position is consistent with the County’s, denying the allegations and opposing the complaint. If a consistency developed between the County and the MPO’s position, then Mr. Zimmet would conflict out and only represent the County and the MPO could then obtain its own lawyer if desired. Mr. Clark stated that the hearings are set for mid-March and early May.

Mr. Mechanik stated that there are discussions going on amongst counsel and decisions could be required to be made long before the next scheduled hearing and Councilman Cohen’s concern could take place sooner than later. He suggested understanding the position of the County and the MPO needs to decide what its position is.

Commissioner Miller reiterated that the MPO Board needs to establish a position and suggested if the Board decides to oppose the lawsuit to join in with the County’s attorney.

A motion was made by Mr. Mechanik that the MPO Board oppose the lawsuit in the greatest extent reasonably possibly. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was carried 13-1 (with Councilman Viera abstaining from the vote).

Following approval of the motion, there was discussion on general counsel representation for the MPO.

Commissioner Overman stated that she does not feel that there would be a discrepancy with the MPO’s and the County’s position and suggested additional discussion.

Councilman Cohen would like to see the Board be as vigorous as possible with the opposition.

Commissioner Overman wanted to know how negotiations and interlocal agreements plays a part of the solution process and addressing conflicts that the MPO may have. Mr. Clark stated as part of Commissioner White’s oath, if a conflict was to arise with Mr. Zimmet, he would have to withdraw and at that point, the MPO would obtain its own counsel. If the Board decides to go with Mr. Zimmet, as part of the motion, if a conflict was to arise that it would necessitate the MPO Board getting its own attorney, to delegate to the MPO Chair the ability to sign a legal service agreement with another attorney and then brought back to the Board for full ratification. A quick adjustment could be made at that time if needed.

Commissioner Smith pointed out that the MPO only gets 1% of the tax and it would be a shame for the Board to have to pay for legal representation. She feels that counsel is mounting a vigorous defense, point by point.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kemp that the MPO join with the County and be represented by Mr. Zimmet. Should a conflict arise, the attorney will conflict out and the Board will deal with it at that time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith.

Mr. Mechanik supported the motion but wanted to get clarification that Mr. Zimmet’s representation of the MPO would by necessity treat the MPO Chairman as a client separate from the County for briefing purposes and decision making. Mr. Clark stated that the MPO would be a client.

As the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioner Miller stated he has met with Mr. Zimmet on the County Commission side.

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 5

Councilman Cohen stated that the responsibility will fall on Commissioner Miller, since he will be representing two separate clients. He supported the motion but asked the Chair to inform the Board if he feels that a conflict arises between the County’s and the MPO’s position. Commissioner Miller stated that the Board will be made aware.

Mr. Clark suggested including in the motion, “in case a conflict arose the ability to delegate to the Chair the ability to bring an attorney in quickly and the decision be ratified subsequently.”

Councilman Cohen amended the motion to include “in case a conflict arise between the MPO and the County, Mr. Zimmet must conflict off as representative for the MPO, and the MPO Chair will be allowed to quickly bring in new counsel. It will be brought back and ratified by the full Board at the next scheduled MPO Board.” The amendment was seconded by Commissioner Overman and Commissioner Kemp. The amendment to the motion was carried 13-1 (with Councilman Viera abstaining from the vote).

There was no additional discussion on the motion.

Commissioner Miller stated that he has never been sued by a colleague and it is unprecedented.

The motion was carried 13-1 (with Councilman Viera abstaining from the vote).

STATUS REPORTS

A. Smart Cities Initiatives: Tampa

Mr. Vik Bhide, with the City of Tampa Smart Mobility Division and Chair of the MPO’s ITS Committee, provided a high-level overview of the City of Tampa’s Smart Cities Initiatives.

(Commissioner Hagan left at 9:51 a.m.)

Following the presentation, Mr. Green inquired about the reduced demand for event parking given the ridesharing aspects people are choosing for travel and he wanted to know if it is the first time the County has tracked the information. The Division works all major special events at Raymond James Stadium and the Amalie Arena, typically know what is going on, has annual meetings and engage with the TSA. Parking demand is declining for entertainment oriented, but not necessarily for day to day items. Recent data, which has not been parsed, shows car ownership in the biggest cities increasing with rideshare increasing as well. If moving to a service base model, roads may be congested, but with the same vehicles circulating and will release parking space in Downtown Tampa. Thirty percent of existing parking space will be made available for redevelopment.

(Councilman Cohen left at 9:51 a.m.)

Commissioner Overman referenced a presentation given at the HART Board by Jared Walker, who indicated the importance of looking at the outcome before moving into projects. The Commissioner recommended that the Smart Cities Initiatives do the same and make it a priority. Mr. Bhide informed the group that as part of the ATMS Project, one of the specifications is to have a centralized system in which the signal system can respond to a CAD/AVL system of transit or public safety. This will provide transit signal priority citywide rather than project by project. Mr. Mechanik wanted to know how the reduction of parking doubling ridesharing to a particular destination, additional congestion, and Uber and Lyft reviewing the sustainability of their economic model is plugged into the initiative. Mr. Bhide stated that the auto industry, Silicon Valley, and ride share companies all are

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 6

hoping that they are on the right track and the results are very mixed. The best thing for government agencies to do is to remain engaged with the various industries and plan for automation. Mayor Jurado inquired about pilot location and the Connect Paint partnership with the Lighthouse for the Blind and the smart paint on sidewalks and the alarm. Mr. Bhide stated that it is haptic and vibratory. Headphones are utilized with the app, and the Lighthouse for the Blind has concerns about a possible distraction; therefore, the City is starting with haptics and facilitating the innovation. They will proceed with the initiative and listen to the experts: intelligent material, Lighthouse for the Blind, and Ohio State University, who’s doing the assessment. The test locations are in South Tampa, at Cleveland and Boulevard and Platt and Boulevard, since those are the nearest bus stops that a lot of people with visual disabilities utilize to access the Lighthouse. Commissioner Kemp commented on parking and congestion and stated that she sees a huge mass transit future that involves larger vehicles and frequency versus single occupancy vehicles. Vik stated, historically, transit was not always a public service. Uber and Lyft may find that having higher occupancy modes could work out better for their business because they will deliver a better product, and currently rideshare during peak hours creates more congestion. The solution will need to be a combination of factors and will only be solved with more passengers in a vehicle than currently. B. Resilient Tampa Bay: Transportation Pilot Project

(Mr. Mechanik left at 10:25 a.m.)

Mrs. Allison Yeh, MPO Staff, provided an update of the pilot project that will assist in meeting the new federal mandate, as well as, be included in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) updates for the three MPOs and the regional LRTP. The Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in collaboration with the Pinellas MPO, Pasco MPO, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and the Florida Department of Transportation District 7, was awarded a Federal Highway Administration Resilience and Durability to Extreme Weather grant.

Additional information can be found at http://www.planhillsborough.org/resilient-tampa-bay-transportation/

Following the presentation, Mr. Green wanted to know if the process will lead to the development of Federal standards for distribution to local MPOs and transportation agencies. Mrs. Yeh stated that staff are participating in a national guidebook that will come out in two months, based on the first grant that was for Hillsborough County Vulnerability Assessment.

Commissioner Overman was concerned that the public and the economically challenged communities were not represented as stakeholders. Mrs. Yeh informed the Commissioner that the survey did not require information on representation; therefore, the presentation slide appears misleading. The list of stakeholders is longer than what was provided in the presentation. Also, there is a working CAC group that consists of a representation from each MPO; however, some members have been unable to attend every meeting. Mrs. Yeh stated that staff attended transportation disadvantaged and emergency management meetings and provided the information.

C. MPO Bylaws Amendment

Ms. Beth Alden, MPO Executive Director, presented two proposed changes to the bylaws that will appear on the consent agenda at the February meeting if there are no objections.

1. In a routine review of organizational policies regarding harassment at the MPO host agency, the Planning Commission, it was noted that there are no policies which apply to the conduct of the many members of the MPO advisory committees. Following coordination

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 7

with the Counsel, staff recommended adding a sentence to the bylaws to clarify that committee members can be dismissed by the MPO chair for violations of standards of conduct, defined as conduct inconsistent with Florida Senate Administrative Policies and Procedures. The information was included in the agenda packet for reference.

2. The membership, structure and duties of the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board are defined in the Florida Administrative Code, Rule 41-2.012. Earlier this year, Rule 41-2.012 was amended to require a new voting member of the board, in every county: a local representative of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities. Staff recommends amending section 4.2.9 of the MPO Bylaws to reflect this change.

The proposed markup of the changes to the bylaws was included in agenda material.

There were no questions or objections.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Ms. Alden announced a Special Workshop for the MPO Board, its committees, and the public on the TBARTA Regional Planning Best Practices Study: January 15th, 5:00 pm, County Center, 26th Floor. The draft report is available on the TBART website (add). Individual briefings have been scheduled for members who are unavailable to attend. On January 31st, there will be a workshop from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. at the County Center, 26th Floor. This will be an opportunity for the public to learn more about potential community impacts associated with FDOT’s plans for I-275 and I-4 interchanges within Tampa’s downtown and Westshore districts. The displays from this workshop will be posted at upcoming meetings for displace for anyone to view who cannot attend the workshop. Two additional workshops are tentatively slated for March and April, and the dates will be distributed once confirmed. FDOT’s Environmental Supplemental Impact Statement public workshop in the Spring. After that workshop, a recommendation will be sent to FHA for approval. Commissioner Smith inquired about the format for public input at the January 15 Workshop. There will be a presentation to the Board from the consultant, 45 minutes will be set aside for public comment, there will be an opportunity for the public to provide written comments as well, and 45 minutes will be set aside for Board discussion. Ms. Alden suggested that recommendation for Board action, be taken up at the January Policy Committee meeting. The Vision Zero Coalition has a street mural painting event scheduled January 12 from 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. at Cleveland Elementary School. The coalition will also participate in the Martin Luther King Jr. parade being held on January 21 at 12:00 p.m. Gena Torres is the staff contact for the Vision Zero Coalition events. The 2019 MPO calendar, which includes highlighted achievements of 2018, was distributed. The next board meeting will be held Tuesday, February 5 on the 26th floor of the County Center, and the TMA Leadership Group meeting will be held February 8, 9:30am, on the 18th Floor of the County Center.

Commissioner Kemp recommended evening meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. to allow the public an opportunity to attend and requested a time change for the January 15 workshop to 6:00 p.m. Staff will change the workshop time to 6:00 p.m.

OLD & NEW BUSINESS There was no old or new business.

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 8

ADJOURNMENT

A quorum was maintained for the duration of the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:48 a.m.

MPO Meeting of January 8, 2019 – Page 9

Committee Reports

Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on January 9 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board: ✓ The Southshore Transit Re-Evaluation; given the passage of the transportation referendum, members were keenly interested in knowing when the study’s recommendations would be implemented by HART; they also wanted to know how it relates to the proposed ferry connecting to MacDill. ✓ The 2019 Safety Targets, with questions about the effectiveness of speed reduction strategies and how crashes are recorded. The CAC also heard reports on: o The Heights Mobility Study; members were supportive and asked a lot of questions about accommodating transit, pedestrians, autos and parking within the limited right-of-way in the Florida/Tampa/Highlands corridor. o The referendum outcome and what it could mean for the MPO. o Highlights from the Association of MPO national conference, focusing on expressway conversion projects in Rochester, NY and Dallas, TX. Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on January 28 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board: ✓ The 2019 Safety Performance Targets. There were questions about funding needed to meet the goals and a lag-time of realizing success should be noted. ✓ The Southshore Transit Re-Evaluation The TAC also heard reports on: o 2045 LRTP Revenue Projections o Automated, Connected, Electric and Shared-Use Vehicles (ACES) in Modeling; the FDOT guidance and potential scenarios were discussed. Meeting of the Policy Committee on January 29 ✓ The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board: ✓ Multimodal Level-of-Service Evaluation – commenting that the new methodology is a giant leap in the right direction, but there is still room for improvement, such as with bike lane signs and signals.

The committee also discussed and took action on:

Plan Hillsborough ✓ MPO Policy Positions for 2019 – the committee discussed the implications of planhillsborough.org [email protected] several bills which have been filed, and directed staff to prepare a letter to the 813 - 272 - 5940 legislative delegation; the draft will be discussed at today’s board meeting. 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

✓ BPAC Motion of December 12 – the committee supported the BPAC’s offer to local governments to review proposals to realign trails. In addition, the committee provided direction to staff on next steps in regional planning and coordination. Members expressed concern about duplication of efforts and unnecessary bureaucracy. Staff suggested streamlining the regional process with a consolidation of the informal TMA Leadership Group and the legally- created MPO Chairs’ Coordinating Committee (CCC). The group also discussed that TBARTA’s and the CCC’s areas of responsibility have diverged, and therefore the staff services agreement between the CCC and TBARTA – administered by Hillsborough MPO acting on behalf of the CCC – may need to be rethought.

Meeting of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on January 9 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board: ✓ Multimodal Level of Service Update ✓ 2019 Safety Targets; with questions regarding how these targets fit into the statewide target of Zero deaths. ✓ Attendance Review and Declaration of Vacant Seats; two seats, both members at large, were identified as vacant. The committee also elected officers: Chair – Jonathan Forbes, Vice Chair – Tony Monk, Member at Large – Jim Shirk. The BPAC heard a report on language used by the media when reporting on bicyclist crashes.

Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee (LRC) on January 16 The committee reelected its existing officers, and approved and forwarded to the MPO Board: ✓ Appointment of Emily Hinsdale as Advocate for Livable Communities member, ✓ 2019 Safety Targets The LRC received status updates on: o Media Framing of Fatal Bicycle Crashes, and o Channelside Drive Design Project

Meeting of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Committee on January 10 The current officers were reelected to serve in 2019: Chair – Vik Bhide; Vice Chair – Brian Gentry; Officer at Large – Vinny Corrazza. The ITS committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board: ✓ Multimodal Level of Service Evaluation ✓ 2019 Safety Performance Targets The ITS committee received updates on o Signal Cycle Lengths/Signal Re-timings in New Tampa o Regional Data-Sharing Platform Pilot

Infrastructure For Rebuilding America | US Department of Transportation https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/infragrants

United States Department of Transportation About DOT O

Programs & Services Library Projects About the Bureau

The INFRA Grants program provides dedicated, discretionary funding for projects that address critical issues facing our nation’s highways and bridges. INFRA grants will support the Administration’s commitment to fixing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure by creating opportunities for all levels of government and the private sector to fund infrastructure, using innovative approaches to improve the necessary processes for building significant projects, and increasing accountability for the projects that are built.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is announcing the second round of the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program through a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) in the Federal Register today. The INFRA program will make approximately $855-902.5 million available to projects that are in line with the Administration’s principles to help rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure – a priority for this Administration. In addition to providing direct federal funding, the INFRA program aims to increase the total investment by state, local, and private partners.

INFRA advances a grant program established in the FAST Act of 2015 and utilizes updated criteria to evaluate projects to align them with national and regional economic vitality goals and to leverage additional non-federal funding. The program will increase the impact of projects by leveraging federal grant funding and incentivizing project sponsors to pursue innovative strategies, including public- private partnerships.

Additionally, the new program promotes the incorporation of innovative technology that will improve our transportation system. INFRA will also hold recipients accountable for their performance in project delivery and operations.

“This Administration is committed to revitalizing, repairing and rebuilding America’s aging infrastructure,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao. “By ensuring the right incentives, projects selected under this program will be better able to make significant, long-term improvements to America’s transportation infrastructure.” Submit Feedback > Infrastructure For Rebuilding America | US Department of Transportation https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/infragrants

The Department will make awards under the INFRA program to both large and small projects. For a large project, the INFRA grant must be at least $25 million. For a small project, the grant must be at least $5 million. For each fiscal year of INFRA funds, 10 percent of available funds are reserved for small projects.

The INFRA grant program preserves the statutory requirement in the FAST Act to award at least 25 percent of funding for rural projects. The Administration understands that rural needs may well exceed this limit, and the Department will consider rural projects to the greatest extent possible. For rural communities in need of funding for highway and multimodal freight projects with national or regional economic significance, INFRA is an opportunity to apply directly for financial assistance from the federal government.

INFRA grants may be used to fund a variety of components of an infrastructure project, however, the Department is specifically focused on projects in which the local sponsor is significantly invested and is positioned to proceed rapidly to construction. Eligible INFRA project costs may include: reconstruction, rehabilitation, acquisition of property (including land related to the project and improvements to the land), environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, equipment acquisition, and operational improvements directly related to system performance.

In FY18, INFRA grants in the amount of nearly $1.5 billion were awarded to 26 projects.

The Application Deadline is March 4, 2019. For more information, visit: www.transportation.gov/INFRA.

Updated: Friday, December 21, 2018

Tags

automated driving systems Data Grants

Submit Feedback > Beth Alden

From: Benson, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 5:33 PM To: Beth Alden; Rich Clarendon; Sarah McKinley Subject: Revised Highlights from the Tentative Work Program FY20-FY24 - Hillsborough MPO Attachments: HIL_Highlights - FY 2020-2024_REVISED_1-11-2019.pdf

Importance: High

The Florida Department of Transportation is preparing to finalize the Tentative Work Program for Fiscal Year 2020 through Fiscal Year 2024. The attached document identifies changes to projects currently included in the last four years of the District’s Adopted Work Program (FY20‐FY23) as well as new projects and phases added as part of this work program update cycle. Further changes to select projects in FY20‐FY23 were required in order to balance project commitments with anticipated revenues. Please note that additional changes have been made to the Tentative Work Program since the Work Program Highlights presentation was delivered to the MPO Board. Projects/cells that have been updated are highlighted in yellow for your convenience.

MPO Objections to the Tentative Work Program are due by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, January 30, 2019. This date was previously reported as January 28 but has been extended by 2 days.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Respectfully,

Stephen L. Benson, AICP, CNU‐A Metropolitan Planning Administrator Florida Department of Transportation District 7 11201 N. McKinley Drive Tampa, Florida 33612 Main (813) 975‐7575 Direct (813) 975‐6427

1 REVISED Hillsborough County MPO Project Highlights FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 7 DRAFT Tentative Work Program FY 2020-2024 Updated 1/11/19 # FPN Phase Description Work Mix Project Comments 255893-4 CST SR 574 (MLK BLVD) FROM EAST OF KINGSWAY RD TO E OF ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Deferred CST from 2023 to 2024; DAF MCINTOSH RD 32 412531-2 ROW I-275/SR 93 FM S OF SR 60 TO S OF LOIS, SR 60 FM S OF I- INTERCHANGE - ADD LANES Fully funded ROW through 2025; TBN Section 4 275 TO SR589 3 414963-2 Transit HART - FHWA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PURCHASE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Added $4M in 2024; DAF P 424513-2 CST I-75 @ BIG BEND ROAD SB OFF RAMP INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Dropped CST. Work to be done under ultimate 424513-3 36 424513-3 CST I-75/SR 93A @ BIG BEND ROAD FROM W OF COVINGTON INTERCHANGE - ADD LANES Added CST in 2022 LF; Anticipate LFR payback of $20 TO E OF SIMMONS in 2024 DAF 438258-2 reserve. 429059-2 CST SR 574 (E MLK BLVD) AT SR 583 (N 50TH ST) ADD RIGHT TURN LANE(S) Advance CST from 2023 to 2019; DAF 430573-3 PE I75/I275 CD ROAD FM S OF COUNTY LINE RD TO COUNTY NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION Deferred PE from 2021 to 2024; LINE RD (PHASE II) 32 431746-2 CST I-4 FROM I-4/SELMON CONNECTOR TO E OF BRANCH ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Moved CST to 424501-5; SIS TBN 8 FORBES RD 32 431821-2 CST I-275 (SR 93) FROM N OF MLK TO N OF HILLSBOROUGH ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT Advanced CST from 2024 to 2023; Goes with 443770- AVE 1, SIS, DAF, TBN 7 32 433821-2 PE I-275/SR 93 FM S OF WILLOW TO N OF MLK;I-4 FM I-275 ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Moved partial PE to other TBN sections in FY 2021; TO W OF CONNECTOR SIS, TBN 6 32 434045-2 Stipends I-275 (SR 93) FROM S OF LOIS AVE TO S OF WILLOW AVE ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT Moved funds to other TBN sections; SIS, TBN 5

434781-5 PE/CST DRAINAGE BOX CULVERT FROM W OF MACDILL AVE TO DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER 435750-1 CST SR 60 FROM VALRICO RD TO E OF DOVER RD ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Deferred CST from 2024 to 2025; SIS 436244-1 ROW SR 582/FOWLER AVE AT RAINTREE BLVD, GILLETTE AVE, N TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Dropped ROW from 2020. Not needed; DAF RIVERHILL DR 436245-1 ROW US 92/SR 600/SR 573/S DALE MABRY AT EL PRADO BLVD TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Dropped ROW from 2020. Not needed; DAF AND INTERBAY BLVD P 436640-1 CST FLORIBRASKA AVE FROM N TAMPA ST TO NEBRASKA AVE BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Deferred CST from 2019 to 2021 Due to County ROW schedule delays; TA. 437041-1 CST WESTSHORE BOULEVARD AND GANDY BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT Advanced CST from 2020 to 2019; CIGP P 437243-1 CST N ROME AVE FROM W KENNEDY BLVD TO W COLUMBUS BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Dropped CST from 2021 per City of Tampa; TA DR 437249-1 CST US 92/SR 600/S DALE MABRY HWY FR NEPTUNE STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Deferred CST from 2022 to 2023; REC reduction TO HENDERSON BLVD 437535-1 CST US 41/SR 45/NEBRASKA AVE AT E TWIGGS ST TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Advanced CST to 2020 with an LFR agreement for payback in 2021; DAF 437639-1 CST US 301/SR 676A FROM S OF BLOOMINGDALE AVE TO WIDEN/RESURFACE EXIST LANES Added CST to 2021; ACSS safety BLOOMINGDALE AVE 21 437650-1 CST GIBSONTON DR EB FROM NB ON RAMP TO I-75 ADD TURN LANE(S) Added CST to 2024; ACNP 437789-1 CST I-75 (SR93A) AND I-4(SR 600)HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LIGHTING Added CST to 2024; DAF VARIOUS LOCATIONS 437821-1 PE SR 580/BUSCH BLVD @ RR CROSSING 626507-C E OF N RAILROAD CROSSING Added PE to 2024; DAF 14TH ST 437823-1 PE/RAIL SR 685/N TAMPA ST @ RAILROAD CROSSING 626300-V AT RAILROAD CROSSING Dropped PE in 2023, added rail phase to 2023. To be E POLK STREET done by CSX 437824-1 PE SR 45 @ RAILROAD CROSSING 626925-T N OF E LONG RAILROAD CROSSING Added PE to 2024; DAF STREET 437825-1 PE/CST SR 685/N FLORIDA AVE @ RAILROAD CROSSING 626298-W RAILROAD CROSSING Dropped PE in 2021, CST in 2023. To be done by CSX; @ E POLK ST DAF 438258-1 BOX I-275/I-75/SR 60/I-4 - TAMPA BAY NEXT RESERVE BOX FUNDING ACTION Funds moved to TBN projects; DAF

438258-2 BOX RESERVE FOR I-75/BIG BEND LOCAL FUND FUNDING ACTION Added $20M in 2024 for ancitpated LFR for I-75/Big REIMBURSEMENT 424513-3 Bend 424513-3 438710-4 CST I-75/SR 93 FROM SOUTH END OF NB EXIT RAMP TO N END LANDSCAPING Added CST to 2020; DAF 1.5% OF NB ACCESS RAMP 2 438747-1 Studies HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING MODEL STUDIES PLANNING MODELS/DATA UPDATE Added funds to 2024; SU 438752-1 APOLLO BEACH EXTENSION FROM US 41 TO PASEO AL NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION Advanced CST from 2021 to 2020 with a payback in MAR BOULEVARD 2021; CIGP 1 439336-4 Plan HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FY 2022/2023-2023/2024 UPWP TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Added 600k in 2024; SU

439412-1 PE/CST SOUTH MAYDELL DRIVE BRIDGE OVER PALM RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Dropped PE being done by locals. Advanced CST to 2020 with LFR agreement. Payback in 2022 13 439476-3 CST E/W GREEN SPINE CYCLE TRACK - PH 3B FROM 7TH AVE BIKE PATH/TRAIL Added CST in 2024; TA TO 13TH AVE 439482-2 PE TAMPA BYPASS CANAL TRAIL FROM N 34TH ST TO SR 581 BIKE PATH/TRAIL Deferred PE from 2020 to 2022 due to local agency (BRUCE B DOWNS) late start on PD&E; TA 439772-1 CST GIBSONTON DR AT FERN HILL DR TRAFFIC SIGNALS Added CST to 2022; ACSS safety 439831-1 PE/CST SR 39/PAUL S BUCHMAN HWY FR N OF KNIGHTS GRIFFIN FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCT Added PE to 2020, CST to 2022; DAF RD TO PASCO CO LINE 440249-1 PE/CST SR674/SUN CITY CTR FR E OF COLLEGE CHASE DR TO E OF RESURFACING Added PE to 2020, CST to 2022; DAF COMMERCIAL CTR DR 440251-1 PE/CST SR 60/E SR 60 FROM W OF N/S VALRICO RD TO W OF RESURFACING Added PE to 2020, CST to 2022; DAF TURKEY CREEK RD

1/11/2019 Page 1 of 3 # FPN Phase Description Work Mix Project Comments 440253-1 PE/CST SR597/DALE MABRY N FROM N OF S VILLAGE DR/W RESURFACING Added PE to 2020, CST to 2022; DAF FLETCHER TO S OF VAN DYKE 440253-2 CST SR597/DALE MABRY N FROM N OF S VILLAGE DR/W URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Added CST to 2022; Complete Streets; DAF goes with FLETCHER TO S OF VAN DYKE segment 1 8 440511-2 PE/CST US 41B/N TAMPA ST & N FLORIDA AVE FROM E TYLER TO URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Added PE to 2020, CST to 2024; DAF MLK 8 440511-3 PE/CST US 41B/N FLORIDA AVE/HIGHLAND AVE FROM MLK BLVD URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Added PE to 2022; Goes with segment 4, DAF TO S OF WATERS 8 440511-4 PE/CST N HIGHLAND AVE FROM WEST VIOLET STREET TO SR URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Added PE to 2022; Goes with segment 3, DAF 574/HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE 8 440511-5 PE/CST OLA AVE BIKEWAY FROM W 7TH AVE TO USB 41/N BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Added PE to 2021, CST to 2023; DAF FLORIDA AVE 8 440511-6 PE/CST CENTRAL AVE BIKEWAY FROM W 7TH AVE TO USB 41/N BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF FLORIDA AVE 10 441098-1 PE/CST SR 580 / BUSCH BLVD MULTIPLE LOCATIONS 12ST, 19TH PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2020, CST to 2022; Goes with Segment ST, PAWNEE AVE 2, ACSS safety 10 441098-2 PE/CST SR 580 / BUSCH BLVD FROM WEST OF N BROOKS ST TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2020, ROW to 2021, CST to 2022; Goes EAST OF N BROOKS ST with segment 1, ACSS safety 441110-1 PE SR 60/KENNEDY BLVD AT WESTSHORE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Added PE to 2023; DAF 7 441288-1 CST SR 60/BRANDON BLVD AT VALRICO FROM S OF SR 60 TO N INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT Added CST to 2021; TRIP OF SR 60 28 441388-1 CST GREEN ARTERY SEG D - FROM SULPHUR SPRINGS PARK TO BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Added CST to 2020; TA 22ND ST PAR 28 441388-2 CST GREEN ARTERY SEG E - N BOULEVARD FROM SLIGH AVE BIKE LANE/SIDEWALK Added CST to 2020; TA TO E BIRD ST 441361-1 PE/CST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT - RIVER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Dropped PE from 2019 and CST from 2020. Moved to TOWER PARK AND PALM RIVER project 4434981; DEM 441493-1 PE/CST SR 574/ MLK BLVD W OF N MACDILL AVE TO N HABANA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Added PE to 2020, CST to 2022; DAF AVE 443316-1 PE/CST I-4 FROM WEST OF PARK ROAD TO EAST OF PARK ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; Freight

443317-1 PE/CST I-4 FROM WEST OF THONOTOSASSA RD TO EAST OF INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; Freight THONOTOSASSA RD 443318-1 PE/CST I-4 FROM WEST OF BRANCH FORBES RD TO EAST OF INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; Freight BRANCH FORBES RD 443319-1 PE/CST I-4 FROM EAST OF EB WEIGH STATION TO EAST OF INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; Freight MCINTOSH ROAD 443320-1 PE/CST I-4 FROM EAST OF MANGO RD TO WEIGH STATION ON- INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2021, CST to 2023; Freight RAMP 443321-1 PE/CST I-4 FROM WEST OF MANGO RD TO EAST OF MANGO RD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; Freight

443426-1 PE/CST SR 60 FROM W OF SR 39 TO W OF CLARENCE GORDON JR RESURFACING Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF and ACNP; RD Concrete 443427-1 PE/CST US 301/US 41/SR 43 FROM S OF WHITT RD TO N OF RIGID PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF and ACNP; RIVERCREST DR Concrete 443428-1 PE/CST US 301/SR 43 FROM S OF CR 672 TO N OF CR 672 RIGID PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF and ACNP; Concrete 20 443444-2 DSB USB 41/SR 685/FLORIDA AVE/TAMPA ST FROM KENNEDY ITS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Added DSB to 2024; DAF BLVD TO BEARSS AVE 20 443445-2 PE/CST SR 60/KENNEDY BLVD FROM WEST OF MEMORIAL HWY ITS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF TO EAST OF ASHLEY DR 20 443445-3 DSB SR 574/W MLK BLVD FROM WEST OF DALE MABRY HWY ITS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Added DSB to 2023; DAF TO EAST OF I-275 8 443492-1 PE/CST US 41/SR 45/NEBRASKA AVE FROM KENNEDY BLVD TO URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Added PE to 2022, CST to 2024; DAF BUSCH BLVD 443498-1 PE/CST TAMPA BAY REGIONAL MITIGATION SITES WETLAND MITIGATION/RESTORATION Added PE to 2019, CST to 2020; DEM

14 443516-1 CST EL PRADO SIDEWALK FROM S OMAR AVE TO S LOIS AVE SIDEWALK Added PE to 2021; LF, CST to 2023; TA

14 443516-2 CST EL PRADO SIDEWALK FROM S LOIS AVE TO BAYSHORE SIDEWALK Added PE to 2022; LF, CST to 2024; TA BLVD 443577-1 PE/CST SR 60/COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY FM E OF ROCKY BIKE PATH/TRAIL Added PE to 2021, CST to 2022; DAF PT DR TO W OF BAYPORT 16 443582-1 PE/CST SULPHUR SPRINGS K THROUGH 8 SCHOOL VARIOUS SIDEWALK Added PE to 2020, CST to 2023; SR2T safety LOCATIONS 443711-1 CST W PLATT STREET AT FREMONT AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNALS Added CST to 2022; ACSS safety

443711-2 CST CLEVELAND STREET AT ROME AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNALS Added CST to 2022; ACSS safety

32 443770-1 CST I-275/SR 93 FROM N OF I-4 TO N OF MLK ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT Added CST to 2023; Goes with 431821-2, SIS, TBN 7

443832-1 CST HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BEARING PAD REPAIRS VARIOUS BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Added CST to 2020; BRRP LOCATIONS

1/11/2019 Page 2 of 3 # FPN Phase Description Work Mix Project Comments 443834-1 PE/CST HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SUBSTRUCTURE REPAIR BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Added PE to 2021, CST to 2022; BRRP VARIOUS LOCATIONS 443835-1 PE/CST HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CULVERTS SUBSTRUCTURE BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Added PE to 2020, CST to 2021; BRRP REPAIR VARIOUS LOCATIONS 443841-1 PE/CST HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LONG BRIDGE REPAIR VARIOUS BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Added PE to 2023, CST to 2024; BRRP LOCATIONS 3 443852-1 Tran HART BUS STOP CAPITAL REPAIRS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SHELTER Added $1M in 2024; DAF 4 443923-1 Study PLATT ST BRIDGE @ HILLSBOROUGH RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY Added Study in 2024; DAF 5 443924-1 Study COLUMBUS DR BRIDGE @ HILLSBOROUGH RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY Added Study in 2024; DAF 6 443925-1 Study VISION ZERO CORRIDOR STUDIES - VARIOUS LOCATIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY Added Study in 2024; DAF

15 443968-1 CST DOLYE CARLTON DR/LAUREL ST ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT Added CST to 2024; DAF 7 443969-1 CST SR 60/W BRANDON BLVD FROM LAKEWOOD DR TO ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT Added CST to 2022: TRIP CLOUD AVE 443969-2 CST SR 60/BRANDON BLVD @ ST CLOUD DR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT Added CST to 2024; Goes with 435750-1, TRIP 444004-1 CST SR 60/FISH CREEK TRAIL BRIDGE FROM S OF FISH CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Added CST to 2020; DAF TO N OF FISH CREEK 444184-1 CST I-275/SR 93 SB FROM HOWARD FRANKLAND BRIDGE TO BIKE PATH/TRAIL Added CST to 2020. G/W HFB; TBN 3, DAF REO ST 444263-1 CST SR 45/SR685 FROM PUBLIX ENTRY TO GRAND VILLA LANDSCAPING Deferred from 2019 to 2020; DAF 1.5% DR/NEBRASKA AVE NB 444264-1 PE US 92/E REYNOLDS ST AR RR NCGN:624411F PLANT CITY RAILROAD CROSSING Added CST to 2024

444373-1 Rail MACDILL AVENUE AT CROSSING NCGN 626342-G RRMP: RAIL SAFETY PROJECT Added Rail to 2020 A 885.79 444374-1 Rail MANHATAN AVE AT CROSSING NCGN: 626363A, RRMP:A RAIL SAFETY PROJECT Added Rail to 2020 888.88 444375-1 Rail ARMENIA AVE AT CROSSING NCGN:626889A, RRMP: SY- RAIL SAFETY PROJECT Added Rail to 2020 851.32 444418-1 CST I-75/SR 93 FROM COWHOUSE CREEK BR #482 TO CR LANDSCAPING Added CST to 2020; DAF 1.5% 579/FLETCHER NB ON RAMP 444419-1 CST I-75/SR 93 FR S END OF SR 56 NB OFF RAMP TO N END OF LANDSCAPING Added CST to 2020; DAF 1.5% I-275 SB ON RAMP

1/11/2019 Page 3 of 3 LET HART Fall in love with your commute! DRIVE US TOGETHER

I'VE GOT A BICYCLEFOR BUILT YOU + ME during YOU DRIVE ME Commuter WALK CRAZY Challenge MY Week WAY February 2019

♥ TO RIDE CARPOOL COAST 11ŝŝ 1212 1313 1414 1515 KARAOKE BIKES WITH ME Try an old favorite or a new way to WALK THE WALK get to work without driving alone... MEET ME WITH Take the Commuter Challenge! AT THE ME BUS Try it alone, or challenge your co-workers to join in. STOP Take the challenge for a trip, a day, or all week. Then, post your commute pics on social media using: LOVE #CommuterChallenge19 AT FIRST Commuter Challenge results may cause you to: BIKE ♥ have fun ♥ ♥ save money ♥ TRY A NEW YOU'RE THE WAY TO GET SPOKES TO WORK ♥ make new friends ♥ WITH TO MY ME I ♥ ♥ look and feel better ♥ WHEELS LET'S TRY ♥ help improve air quality ♥ TRANSIT HART ♥ get your work out in before work ♥ DOWNTOWNERSHARE A

♥ skip traffic stress and parking hassles ♥ WITH ♥ relax, read, or prep for work on the way in ♥ LOVE TO ME TELECOMMUTE Anything's possible when you're not driving alone! XO For more commuting info and partner links: planhillsborough.org Source: Dr. Scott Crawford Dr. Source: Source: April Bertelsen, PBOT Source:

DANGEROUS

2019 BY DESIGN Source: Stephen Lee Davis, SGA Source: SMART GROWTH AMERICA is a national organization dedicated to researching, advocating for, and leading coalitions to bring better development to more communities nationwide. From providing more sidewalks to ensuring that more homes are built near public transportation or that productive farms remain a part of our communities, smart growth helps make sure people across the nation can live in great neighborhoods. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org.

The NATIONAL COMPLETE STREETS COALITION, a program of Smart Growth America, seeks to fundamentally transform the look, feel, and function of the roads and streets in our communities, by changing the way most roads are planned, designed, and constructed. Complete Streets policies direct transportation planners and engineers to consistently design with all users in mind. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets. This project was made possible by the following organizations:

AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million members and offices in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP works to strengthen communities and advocate for what matters most to families with a focus on healthy security, financial stability and personal fulfillment. The AARP Livable Communities initiative works nationwide to support the efforts of neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and rural areas to be livable for people of all ages.

Websites: AARP.org and AARP.org/Livable | Email: [email protected] | Free Newsletter: AARP.org/Livable-Subscribe Facebook: /AARPLivableCommunities | Twitter: @AARPLivable | 601 E Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20049

Founded in 1899, the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS is the professional association for landscape architects in the United States, representing more than 15,000 members. The Society’s mission is to advance landscape architecture through advocacy, communication, education, and fellowship. Sustainability has been part of ASLA’s mission since its founding and is an overarching value that informs all of the Society’s programs and operations. ASLA has been a leader in demonstrating the benefits of green infrastructure and resilient development practices through the creation of its own green roof, co- development of the SITES® Rating System, and the creation of publicly-accessible sustainable design resources. Learn more at www.asla.org.

NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES is an internationally recognized firm committed to developing transportation systems that promote vibrant, sustainable, and accessible communities. We plan and design connected complete streets that put people first. Learn more at www.nelsonnygaard.com.

In addition, thank you to the following individuals for your support and for adding your voices to call for safer streets:

John David Carson Morgan Palmer Daniel P Stephens Barb Chamberlain Joe Roskowski John D Thompson Rich Harrison Elizabeth Schilling

Janet Manry John Siekmeier

Project Team: The primary author of the language in this report was Heather Zaccaro. Jordan Chafetz and Sophie Schonfeld conducted all analyses and created the maps and figures throughout this report. This project was conducted under the leadership and guidance of Emiko Atherton, Stephen Lee Davis, and Michael Rodriguez. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed which we designed for the movement of vehicles, 49,340 people who were walking on streets all across haven’t changed. In fact, we are continuing to design the United States. That’s more than 13 people per streets that are dangerous for all people. Furthermore, day, or one person every hour and 46 minutes. It’s the federal and state policies, standards, and funding equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people crashing—with mechanisms still produce roads that prioritize high no survivors—every single month. speeds for cars over safety for all people.

In the past decade, the number of people To reverse this trend and save lives, we need struck and killed while walking increased to protect all users of the transportation by 35 percent. 2016 and 2017 were the two system through our policies, programs, and highest years since 1990 for the number funding. of people who were killed by drivers while walking.

This report ranks states and metropolitan areas around the country using our “Pedestrian Danger 2 Index”, or PDI. This index measures how deadly it is for people to walk based on the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking, controlling for the number of people that live in that state or metro area and the share of people who walk to work. The 2019 edition of Dangerous by Design includes traffic deaths that occurred between 2008 and 2017 from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a national database of all fatal traffic crashes.

What this report shows is that our streets Federal funds, aren’t getting safer. Even more so, while policies, and traffic deaths impact every community in standards helped to the United States, states and metropolitan areas across the southern continental United create this problem States, older adults, people of color, and and have a role in people walking in low-income communities bear a higher share of this harm. improving the streets

Why is this happening? We’re not walking more, we build tomorrow. and we’re only driving slightly more than we were back in 2008. What is happening is that our streets, DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Executive Summary

THE TOP 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians (2008-2017) Top 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians, 2008-2017 Top 1-10 Top 11-20

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn

Bakersﬁeld Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin

Albuquerque Memphis Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway Augusta-Richmond County Birmingham-Hoover

Jackson Jacksonville Baton Rouge Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach 3 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Lakeland-Winter Haven North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Cape Coral-Fort Myers Miami-Fort Lauderdale- West Palm Beach

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission

Our federal government needs to take the We call on state DOTs and MPOs to put people first lead on prioritizing safer streets. Federal and give their organizations the tools and training they dollars and policies helped create these need to create transportation networks that serve all unsafe streets in the first place. And users. federal funds, policies, and guidance have a We call on the over 1,400 communities that have significant role to play in fixing these streets adopted a Complete Streets policy to turn their vision and in designing the streets we’ll build into practice and implementation. tomorrow. And we call on you to demand safer streets from the We call on Congress to adopt a strong, federal elected officials in your communities. Complete Streets policy that requires state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to consistently plan for all people who use the street, including the most vulnerable users. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed 49,340 people while they were walking throughout the United States.1 That’s more than 13 people How do we shift per day, or one person every hour and 46 minutes. It’s the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people safety culture? One crashing—with no survivors—every single month. fatality on a U.S. air Unlike traffic fatalities for motor vehicle occupants, which decreased by 6.1 percent from 2008 to 2017, carrier in nine years, pedestrian deaths have been steadily rising since “ and everyone in this 2009. In 2015, 5,494 people died while walking, an unprecedented increase of 11.9 percent compared room knew about it. to the previous year. In 2016, pedestrian deaths rose by another 10.6 percent to 6,080. Deaths So why do we under- declined slightly in 2017 to 5,977, but this is nothing react to hundreds of to celebrate—it’s still the second highest body count 2 4 on record since 1990. tragic deaths every day on our roads?" -Deborah Hersman, former President & CEO, Pedestrian Fatalities and National Safety Council Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (2008-2017)

, , ,

, Natoa ece Me Traee tro , , , , , ,

Tota Peetra Fatate toa Tota

DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

ARE WE WALKING MORE? Not really. Although individual cities and metropolitan areas have observed increased walking rates, the share of trips made by walking nationwide barely increased from 2009 to 2017 according to the National Household Travel Survey, and the total number of all trips, including walking trips, decreased during this time.3

ARE WE DRIVING MORE? Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), or the total amount of driving we do as a nation each year, has gradually increased since 2011. However, as shown in the chart on the previous page, VMT in 2017 was only 8.1 percent higher than it was in 2008 before the economic recession, but the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking rose by more than a third during this time period and is higher now than it’s been in nearly three decades.4,5 5

BY THE NUMBERS From 2008 to 2017:

Pedestrian Vehicle miles Walking as a Traffic deaths deaths traveled share of all trips among motor increased by increased by increased by vehicle occupants decreased by less * 35.4% 8.1% than 1% 6.1% *from 2009 to 2017 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction Source: Stephen Lee Davis / Smart Growth America Stephen Lee Davis / Smart Growth Source:

WHAT’S GOING WRONG? We continue to design streets that are dangerous for all people, not just because we keep repeating the same mistakes, but because our federal policies, standards, and funding mechanisms that have been 6 in place for decades produce dangerous roads that prioritize high speeds for cars over safety for all people.

Additionally, more people are driving cars that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Our federal government needs to take (NHTSA) has determined to be notoriously dangerous the lead on prioritizing safer streets. for people walking. According to a 2015 NHTSA Federal dollars and policies helped create report, SUVs (sport utility vehicles) and pickup these unsafe streets in the first place. And trucks are two to three times more likely than smaller federal funds, policies, and standards have a personal vehicles like sedans to kill people walking in significant role to play in fixing these streets the event of a crash. A recent Detroit Free Press article and in designing the streets we’ll build observed that SUV sales have climbed steadily since tomorrow. 2012, surpassing sedans as the best-selling type of vehicle nationwide as of 2014.6,7

This year, Congress has a major opportunity to reshape our mobility future as they begin the work of reauthorizing our federal transportation bill in 2020. To address our continuing safety problems, they must create policies that change the way we fund, design, and measure the success of our streets nationwide to make sure the safety of all people who use the street including people walking, is our highest priority. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

We need a strong federal Complete Streets policy that requires state departments of transportation to consistently “ACCEPTABLE” DEATHS? plan for all people who use the street, including Many states—including 10 of the the most vulnerable users. Federal policy must 20 most dangerous for people also open the door for flexible guidance to allow walking— planners and engineers to make innovative planned decisions about how to design roadways to for more accommodate all users. We need performance pedestrian measures that ensure states set targets that deaths in 2018 require progress toward creating safer streets than 2017. and hold them accountable for achieving Under the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway reductions in serious injuries and fatalities, Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), state departments of transportation were required to set performance penalizing them for failing to meet those targets. targets for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and then And we also need more high quality data on monitor their progress over time. Unfortunately, a closer the street conditions where fatalities occur and look at these targets reveals just how low the bar is on traffic-related injuries nationwide to help us for safety in many states which are setting targets that better diagnose and solve the problem. would actually increase pedestrian fatalities.

Funding is a first step. But not the last. In 2017, states updated their safety goals for 2018, As long as the federal government continues including setting target numbers for deaths and serious 7 to invest the lion’s share of our transportation injuries among people walking, biking, or using other funding in building, maintaining, and widening non-motorized forms of travel. 18 states established streets for cars instead of creating safer streets targets for non-motorized deaths and injuries that are for people, we will continue to see more people higher than the number of people killed or injured in being killed while walking. National policy must the most recent year of data reported. Ten of these reflect safety as a higher priority. This will result 18 states—Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, in the reallocation of our current spending to Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, and Oklahoma—are among the top 20 most dangerous invest in safety for all users and help to establish states for people walking. dedicated funding programs for projects to support walking, biking, transit, and other The only “acceptable” number of deaths on our modes of transportation. roadways is zero, but every single state—whether seeking to marginally reduce pedestrian deaths and Emerging technologies such as injuries or allow them to continue climbing unabated— automated vehicles (AVs) aren’t the established a target for “success” that allows these answer either. These technologies are not preventable deaths to continue or even increase. going to solve our safety problems for us, especially not when it comes to the safety of We can and must raise the bar by requiring states to set safety targets that reduce rather than increase the people walking. AVs may not always be able number of people killed or seriously injured while walking to reliably detect people walking and biking. or biking on our streets, ultimately working toward Additionally, under pending federal legislation, eventually eliminating all traffic-related deaths and states and cities will have little to no oversight serious injuries. However, to make this vision a reality, over how these technologies are deployed we need a strong federal policy with binding enforceable within their own communities. requirements that hold states to higher safety standards. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

Motor Vehicle Related Fatalities

We must make preventing traffic deaths a higher This report ranks the most dangerous states and priority nationwide, including for people walking. metropolitan areas across the United States for people Of all the people that die in traffic crashes on our walking. It also exposes disparities in which groups of 8 roads, people walking now comprise 16.1 percent people are most at risk of dying while walking. of all deaths, and as shown above, that share has Traffic deaths impact every community in the been consistently growing for more than a decade.8 United States, but states and metropolitan Better, faster trauma care and safety improvements areas across the southern continental United for occupants of vehicles ranging from seatbelts States, older adults, people of color, and to automatic braking and lane departure warnings people walking in low-income communities have played an important role in saving lives on our bear a higher share of this harm. roadways overall. However, the safer street and vehicle design standards needed to protect people It is our hope that this report will inspire communities walking have progressed slowly or not at all. across the country to take action. Policymakers at the federal, state, and local level can and should do more to ensure streets are designed and operated to protect the safety of all people who use them regardless of age, ability, income, race, ethnicity, or mode of transportation. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM? It’s thankfully not a mystery—we have the recipe in our hands. At the federal level, we need a strong, federal Complete Streets policy as a first major step, but here arenine other concrete actions that policymakers, local leaders, engineers, and others can take at the state, metropolitan, or local level. State actions

1. Set performance targets that will improve safety. State (DOTs) must be held accountable for making reductions in serious injuries and fatalities and should be penalized for failing to meet those targets. They certainly shouldn’t receive funding for plans to increase fatalities. Read more on page 7.

2. Prioritize safety over vehicle movement. Though states might have a long list of goals or objectives for their transportation system, moving vehicles quickly and efficiently and maintaining pavement conditions generally take precedence. One way to make safety a higher priority is to get rid of the “level of service” design metric. Level of service, used by nearly all states, measures the success of a street solely based on vehicle delay. Minimizing vehicle delay as the number one goal often produces the roads that are the most dangerous by design.

3. Provide state transportation officials and engineers with the most up-to-date training and education on implementing Complete Streets. In states that have made a policy commitment to Complete Streets, often the professional staff tapped to implement changes lack the knowledge required, or the policies and decision-making frameworks already in place need to be updated to support Complete Streets. At the request of state or city DOTs, the National Complete Streets Coalition (and other programs within Smart Growth America) have provided staff with the training needed to embed Complete Streets in their day-to-day work and make safer projects a reality. DANGEROUSDANGEROUS BYBY DESIGNDESIGN IntroductionIntroduction

State or local actions

1. Prioritize projects that will benefit those who suffer disproportionately. Some groups, including people of color and people walking in lower-income communities, are disproportionately struck and killed while walking. To address this, decision-makers should prioritize the projects that would benefit these vulnerable users. For example, the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, when deciding which projects to fund in their selection process, awards extra points to projects that will improve safety for people walking or biking in certain disadvantaged areas.1

2. Embrace the flexibility provided by FHWA to design safer streets. New design guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2016 gave states and cities wide latitude to design streets to best suit local needs and rolled back old regulations that treated all streets and roads like highways. This cleared the way for states, metro areas, and local communities to use federal dollars to design safer streets, yet many states falsely claim that federal guidelines continue to restrict innovative street design.

3. Design roads to reduce speeds wherever possible. For people on foot, the likelihood of surviving a crash decreases rapidly as speeds increase past 30 mph. The federal government already knows that excessive speed is a deadly problem in our nation’s transportation system—the National Transportation Safety Board recently acknowledged this in a powerful report to FHWA.2 The current practice of measuring how fast most traffic travels on a road and then setting speed limits so that only 15 percent of the drivers are exceeding that

10 10 limit results in artificially high speed limits—and unsafe streets for everyone. Rather than designing roads that encourage speeding and then relying upon enforcement, states and cities should design roads to encourage safer, slower driving speeds in the first place.

4. Pass actionable Complete Streets policies that lay the groundwork for implementation. The National Complete Streets Coalition’s policy framework provides guidance on how to craft a strong policy that sets up clear next steps to embed Complete Streets in routine transportation planning.3

5. Stop referring to pedestrian fatalities as unavoidable “accidents.” City and state leaders should set an example by replacing the word “accident” with “crash” when discussing these preventable deaths. It’s a small change that can make a big difference. Read more on page 22.

6. Test out bold, creative approaches to safer street design. Poor street design is neither an insurmountable nor expensive problem. Some cities have found success by testing out low-cost, short-term interventions to create safer streets and then measuring the results to gauge the impact of their projects to work toward permanent solutions.4

1. Building Healthy & Prosperous Communities: How metro areas are implementing more and better bicycling and walking projects. Transportation for America. December, 2017. http://t4america.org/maps-tools/healthy-mpos-guidebook/ 2. Safety Study: Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles. NTSB/SS-17/01 PB2017-102341 National Transportation Safety Board. Adopted July 25, 2017. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf 3. The Elements of a Complete Streets Policy, Effective 2018. Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition. November, 2017. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/introducing-brand-new-grading-framework-complete-streets-policies/ 4. Safety Demonstration Projects: Case studies from Orlando, FL, Lexington, KY, and South Bend, IN. Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition. April, 2018. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/safety-demonstration-projects-case-studies-from- orlando-fl-lexington-ky-and-south-bend-in/ DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk

THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACES TO WALK Our “Pedestrian Danger Index”, or PDI, calculates how deadly it is for people to walk in a state or metropolitan area based on the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking, controlling for the number of people that live in that state or metro area and the number of people that walk to work. Calculating PDI in this way corrects for places that may have higher numbers of fatalities simply as a function of higher numbers of people traveling on foot overall, allowing balanced comparisons between very different places. The share of people who walk to work is the best nationally available approximation of the total number of people who walk for all trips.

The 2019 calculations include traffic deaths that Stephen Lee Davis, SGA Source: 11 occurred between 2008 and 2017 from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a national dtrin Dt dtrin database of all fatal traffic crashes. Walk to work oution Dnr and population data are taken from the U.S. Census Ind rcnt o in ri Bureau’s 2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates. For age, race, and ethnicity, we calculate a variation of PDI using walking rates from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey in lieu of Census Compared to data. Consult the Appendix for a more detailed description of our methodology. the previous

This report calculates PDI for all 50 states (plus decade of data in Washington, DC) and for the 100 largest census Dangerous by Design 2016, defined metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) 39 states and the District nationwide. However, just because your community does not fall within the top 10 or 20 most dangerous of Columbia, and 79 out of places is not necessarily cause for celebration. Since the 100 largest metropolitan the previous edition of Dangerous by Design, which looked at pedestrian deaths between 2004 and areas, have become more 2015, PDI scores in the vast majority of states and dangerous for people metropolitan areas nationwide have worsened. walking. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk

THE TOP 20 Most Dangerous States for Pedestrians (2008-2017) o ot Dnrou Stt or dtrin

Mca

Deaare Mara Neaa

etc Mor Caora Nort Caroa Teeee Sot Caroa Oaoma Aroa Ne Meco Araa Geora Aaama M Fora Tea Loaa 12

DE S G N S N N N D I Y 2008-2017 Pedestrian Danger Index

PDI BY STATE The map above highlights the top 20 most dangerous states for people walking based on PDI scores. With just a few exceptions, the most Future research dangerous states are located in the southern continental United States. should explore how historic and ongoing street design Why the Sun Belt? practices contribute Part of the reason for this may be because much of the growth in these to these geographic places occurred in the age, and the development scale of, the automobile. trends. Previous research by Smart Growth America found that in general, the most sprawling metropolitan areas with wider roads and longer blocks typically cluster in the southern states.9 Furthermore, academic research has consistently linked these sprawling growth patterns to higher rates of both traffic-related deaths for people walking and traffic-related deaths overall.10 Future research should explore how historic and ongoing street design practices contribute to these geographic trends. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk

The figure below shows the 10 states that experienced the biggest increase in PDI since the previous iteration of Dangerous by Design. Compared to PDI scores for traffic deaths for the period from 2004 to 2015, PDI scores for these states for the decade from 2008 to 2017 rose by anywhere from 7.9 to 24.5 points, meaning these places have become even more dangerous for people walking. argest Increases in State PDI Scores, 201-2018 States with Largest Increases in 10-Year PDI Scores

Delaware 24 Georgia 12 District of Columbia 114 Teas 108 Tennessee 10 evada 8 Oklahoma Mississippi 8 labama 84 ouisiana 7 13

0 20 40 0 80 100 120 140 10 argest Increases in MS PDI Scores, 201-2018

The top 10 most dangerous states for people walking Top Ten Most Dangerous States in 2019 are the exact same states called out in Dangerous by Design 2016, although the rankings within the top 10 have shifted slightly. The figure at D D D D right shows how the top ten states have changed, orid or more importantly, remained exactly the same in A ranking between our 2016 and 2019 reports. States highlighted in bold at the right either moved up in the ouiin D ranks or remained at the top of our list of the most iiii ouiin dangerous places for people walking. Unfortunately, N ico iiii overhauling road design can take decades without the rion G political will to prioritize safety improvements. Although Sout roin N ico some of these states, including Florida (through their Dr state DOT), have committed to statewide Complete rion Streets policies, they still have a long way to go to Gori Sout roin translate those policies into practice. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

4 out of 5 major metropolitan areas grew more dangerous for people walking Source: Creative Commons Creative Source:

Four out of every five major metropolitan areas grew PDI BY METROPOLITAN more dangerous for people walking since the previous AREA edition of Dangerous by Design. The chart below shows the metropolitan areas that experienced the The next page shows the PDI scores for the top largest increases. These regions saw PDI scores 20 most dangerous metropolitan areas for people climb by upwards of 28.6 to 86.4 points, meaning walking. Once again, the majority of these places fall 14 the decade from 2008 to 2017 was on average much across the southern continental United States, with more dangerous for people walking in these places eight of the top 10 most dangerous metropolitan compared to the decade between 2004 and 2015. areas in the state of Florida.

argest Increases in MS PDI Scores, 201-2018 MSAs with Largest Increases in 10-Year PDI Scores

orth Port - Sarasota - 84 radenton, F

akersfield, C 84

Orlando - issimmee - 78 Sanford, F Greenville - nderson - 1 Mauldin, SC

aton ouge, 7

Deltona - Datona each 72 - Ormond each, F Fresno, C 2

Memphis, T-MS- 0

akeland - inter 0 Haven, F Greensboro - High 28 Point, C

0 0 100 10 200 20 00 0 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Dangerous Places to Walk

THE TOP 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians (2008-2017) Top 20 Most Dangerous Metropolitan Areas for Pedestrians, 2008-2017 Top 1-10 Top 11-20

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn

Bakersﬁeld Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin

Albuquerque Memphis Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway Augusta-Richmond County Birmingham-Hoover

Jackson Jacksonville

Baton Rouge Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville 15 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Lakeland-Winter Haven North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Cape Coral-Fort Myers Miami-Fort Lauderdale- West Palm Beach

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission

2008-2017 Pedestrian Danger Index

Jackson Memphis Bakersﬁeld Jacksonville Baton Rouge Albuquerque

Birmingham-Hoover

Lakeland-Winter Haven Cape Coral-Fort Myers Detroit-Warren-Dearborn McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Augusta-Richmond County Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach DANGEROUS BY DESIGN RightIntroduction Place, Wrong Time

In response, the city added a leading pedestrian RIGHT PLACE, WRONG interval, which gives people crossing the street a TIME head start before cars are given the green light, On July 15, 2015, 46-year-old Francisca Chaja Pelico making people walking more visible to turning drivers. and her nine-year-old granddaughter Mariela stood on Leading pedestrian intervals, a proven safety the corner of Broadway and Cecil Avenue in Knoxville, countermeasure recommended by the Federal Tennessee. They waited for the light to change then Highway Administration, cost nothing to implement proceeded into the crosswalk. where there are already pedestrian signals in place, But the light changed back before they had enough and neither does extending the time people have to time to make it all the way across the street. A driver cross the street. These no-cost measures can (and waiting at the red light accelerated, striking both do) mean the difference between life and death, Francisca and her granddaughter in the crosswalk. especially for older adults and people living with Mariela’s injuries, thankfully, were not serious. But mobility challenges. Francisca was transported to the hospital where she We need to think proactively about these safety died the next day. concerns when we design our intersections and Tragedies like Francisca’s are far too commonplace. make sure we provide people not only with safe, Compared to younger people who are struck and convenient places to cross the street, but also with killed by drivers while walking, older adults killed while sufficient time to make it all the way across at their 16 walking are more often at an intersection or within own pace. a crosswalk. Part of the reason for this is because even when transportation planners provide people with marked places to cross the street, the amount of time provided to rush all the way across often isn’t adequate, especially for older adults and people living with disabilities.

Three years later, the City of Knoxville is testing out improvements to make the intersection of Broadway and Cecil a safer place for people walking. The T-shaped intersection now includes technology that detects people in the crosswalk and extends the length of the walk phase until they make it all the way across the street.

Scarcely 10 miles away two older adults were struck and injured in the same crosswalk by two different drivers making left-hand turns at the intersection of Downtown West and Ray Mears Boulevards. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Vulnerable Populations

THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS Who are the victims of these tragic crashes? Although Relative Pedestrian Danger by Age people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and income (2008-2017) levels suffer the consequences of dangerous street design, some neighborhoods and groups of people 2020 20.7 28 Pedestrianbear a larger Danger share of Index the burden by Age, than 2008-2017 others.

Older adults, people of color, and people U.S. walking in low-income communities are Overall: disproportionately represented in fatal 14.8 crashes involving people walking.

Even after controlling for differences in population size and walking rates, we see that drivers strike and 50+ 65+ 75+ kill people over age 50, Black or African American People age 50 and up, and especially people age 75 people, American Indian or Alaska Native people, and and older, are overrepresented in deaths involving people walking in communities with lower median people walking.12 This age group is more likely to 17 household incomes at much higher rates. experience challenges seeing, hearing, or moving, and if these trends are any indication, we are not devoting Older Adults nearly enough attention to the unique needs of older Our nation’s population is becoming older on average. adults when we design our streets. People are living longer and the post-war generation These disparities become even more pronounced known as the Baby Boomers is reaching the age when we account for variations in walking rates by of retirement. According to U.S. Census Bureau age.13,14 The relative PDI for older adults age 50 and projections, people age 65 and older currently make above is more than a third higher than it is for the up about 15 percent of the population, but by 2050 general population, and for people age 75 and up this is expected to rise to 22 percent.11 This has it is almost twice as high. Additionally, a closer look important implications for traffic-related deaths as well at nationwide FARS data reveals that, compared to as for how we design our streets. younger victims of pedestrian deaths, older adults who are struck and killed while walking are more often at an intersection or in a crosswalk.15 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Vulnerable Populations Source: Nelson\Nygaard Source:

SEIZE THE MOMENT Across the country, nonprofits and advocacy groups have staged protests 18 and performances to call attention to the amount of time older adults need to safely cross the street. Even where marked crosswalks exist—and in many places they are still, crucially, absent—the traffic signal timing may provide a dangerously inadequate amount for older adults and people living with disabilities to safely cross.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Sojourn Theatre staged a performance to highlight insufficient signal timings at crosswalks. They carried homemade ship sails and mock drawbridges, staging 20-second performances in dangerous intersections identified by older adults through a survey. They also invited a state senator and six local and regional elected officials to walk across the street alongside older adults to experience firsthand how stressful and dangerous it can be to try to race against the clock. As a result, Milwaukee adjusted countdown clocks to give pedestrians more time to make it safely across the street.

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a group called Lively Pittsburgh organized a crosswalk flash mob. Participants of all ages and abilities wore matching “safer together” t-shirts and danced in the crosswalk as a reminder to drivers to look out for people crossing the street, especially people who may take longer to cross and use motorized chairs or crutches to get around.

And in San Francisco, California, the nonprofit organization Senior and Disability Action led a campaign to increase citywide signal timings so people of all ages and abilities, including people living with sight and mobility challenges, have enough time to safely cross any street. They organized marches and press conferences in public plazas to call attention to their concerns. As a result, the city changed its guidance for calculating how much time to give people to cross the street, increasing crossing times by a third citywide. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Vulnerable Populations

PEOPLE OF COLOR Drivers strike and kill people of color, especially discouraged homeownership for people of color, Black or African American and American Indian or particularly for Black or African American people, by Alaska Native people, at higher rates compared to restricting mortgages outside of exclusively White White, Non-Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander neighborhoods, and the construction of the National people.The figure below highlights the relative danger Highway System disproportionately carved through by census-designated racial and ethnic groups of communities of color when building these new high- 18 being struck and killed while walking, controlling for speed arterials. In addition to siting more dangerous differences in walking rates and population size.16,17 roads near communities of color, implicit bias may also play a role in the increased danger for people of color. Structural racism has guided many of the decisions Research by the University of Nevada has shown that we’ve made about housing and transportation for drivers are significantly more likely to yield to a White decades, and the consequences of these decisions pedestrian in a crosswalk than to a Black or African are still readily apparent in communities of color American pedestrian.19 today. Federal policies and practices actively

19 19

Relative Pedestrian Danger by Race and Ethnicity (2008-2017)

8.18.1 12.4 13.9 18.3 33

U.S. Overall: 14.8

Asian or Pacific White, Hispanic or Black or African American Indian Islander Non-Hispanic Latino American or Alaska Native DANGEROUS BY DESIGN The Most Vulnerable Populations

KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS ADOPTS COMPLETE STREETS When it comes to traffic safety, the challenges faced by American Indians are similar to the challenges faced throughout rural America. Sprawling, car-oriented street design, often without sidewalks or marked crosswalks, can make it incredibly dangerous to walk along many rural roads, and when crashes do occur, it can take much longer for emergency medical services to reach the victims and begin critical, life-saving treatment.

Among American Indians specifically, these challenges are further compounded by historic—and ongoing—injustices. The reservation system was, simply put, not designed with the interests or wellbeing of American Indians in mind. Lack of funding to improve and maintain roads coupled with historically poor street design has left these communities incredibly vulnerable to traffic fatalities.

For the Kalispel Tribe of Indians in Washington State, the most dangerous street is a 50 mile-per-hour county-owned roadway without any sidewalks or crosswalks. Many people must regularly walk along this road to reach jobs, shops, and schools, especially children and people who do not have access to personal vehicles.

However, change is on the horizon for the Kalispel Tribe. In 2018, they became the first tribal government to adopt a Complete Streets policy. Now, they are working closely with the county to introduce safer street improvements and to develop a new framework for economic development.

20 Kalispel hopes to establish itself as a model for how tribal governments around the country can adopt policies and develop partnerships that better serve their unique needs, challenges, and desires.

Where are people most often struck and killed while walking? Find the most deadly places with an interactive map: www.smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction Source: Tri-State Transportation Campaign Transportation Tri-State Source:

LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES Although nationwide data do not include information about the household income of individuals who are struck and killed while walking, they do reveal where people are walking when they are killed. We analyzed where

pedestrian fatalities occur relative to the median household income of the 21 surrounding area and found that people die while walking at much higher rates in lower-income communities compared to higher-income ones, as seen below.20 This is unsurprising, given that low-income communities are significantly less likely than higher income communities to have sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and street design to support safer, slower speeds, also known as traffic calming.21

LocationPedestrian of Pedestrian Fatalities Fatalities per 100,000 by Neighborhood People by Income Median Household Income 3.0

2.0 U.S. Overall: 1.55

1.0 Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 0 $3-$36k $37k-$47k $48k-$59k $60k-$78k $79k-$250k

Census Tract Median Household Income DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction Source: Barbara McCann Source:

WORDS MATTER CONCLUSION They’re crashes, not “accidents.” We can and must do more to reduce the number of people who die while walking every day on our Writing and talking about these preventable deaths as mere “accidents” undermines roadways. For too long we have disregarded this the urgency of this crisis and undercuts our problem by prioritizing moving cars at high speeds over responsibility to take action. safety for everyone. It’s past time for that to change. To combat this rhetoric, one Nashville-based Protecting the safety of all people who use the street, initiative is changing the conversation. A especially the people most vulnerable to being struck partnership between Vanderbilt Medical Center, 22 and killed, needs to be a higher priority for policymakers, Tennessee State University, The Sidewalk Foundation, and Walk Bike Nashville launched and this priority must be reflected in the decisions we the Nashville Pedestrian Death Registry. The make about how to fund, design, operate, maintain, and project maps where people die while walking in measure the success of our roads. Nashville and tells a richer, more complete story about who the victims were and where and why We call on federal policymakers to step up and the fatal crash occurred. establish safety as a higher priority. We call for binding, enforceable requirements for states to work toward The project aims to add urgency to the reducing—and eventually eliminating—deaths and call for safer streets in Nashville, where the sidewalk network is notoriously incomplete or serious injuries on our roadways. We call for funding non-existent. Instead of reiterating the victim- dedicated to safer street projects that specifically serve blaming rhetoric prevalent in media coverage the needs of all people walking, particularly older adults, about these tragic deaths (such as focusing people of color, and low-income communities. We call on dark colored clothing, distracted walking, for federally endorsed street design standards that put walking while intoxicated, and crossing where the safety of vulnerable users first and foremost and that no crosswalk is available), the Nashville Pedestrian Death Registry is shifting the allow for flexible, context-sensitive design approaches. narrative toward the human faces behind these The time for complacency has passed. We must treat tragedies. By changing the conversation about this crisis as if our lives, and the lives of our friends, why people die while walking, the Nashville families, and neighbors, depend on it. Pedestrian Death Registry hopes to garner support for policies that prioritize the safety Because the reality is, they do. of people walking and for more investment in projects to improve safety.

You can learn more about this initiative at NashvillePedestrianDeathRegistry.org DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Endnotes

ENDNOTES 1. All pedestrian fatality data for the report are from: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017). Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Available from https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars. 2. Ibid. 3. Federal Highway Administration. (2009; 2017). National Household Travel Survey. Available from https://nhts.ornl.gov/. 4. Federal Highway Administration. (2008-2016). Highway Statistics Series, Table VM-2. Available from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policyinformation/quickfinddata/qftravel.cfm 5. Federal Highway Administration. (2017). Travel Monitoring, Traffic Volume Trends. Available from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm. 6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2015). New Car Assessment Program. Available from https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2015/12/16/2015-31323/new-car-assessment-program. 7. Lawrence ED, Bomey N, and Tanner K. (2018). “Death on foot: America’s love of SUVs is killing pedestrians.” Detroit Free Press. Available from https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/. 8. Other non-motorists category includes bicyclists and other cyclists, persons on personal conveyances, and persons in/on buildings. 9. Ewing R, Pendall R, and Chen D. (2002). Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Available from: https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/ legacy/documents/MeasuringSprawl.PDF. 10. Ewing R, Schieber RA, and Zegeer CV. (2003). Urban Sprawl as a Risk Factor in Motor Vehicle Occupant and Pedestrian Fatalities. American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1541-1545. Available from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/ AJPH.93.9.1541. 11. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). National Population Projections Tables. Available from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/ popproj/2017-summary-tables.html. 12. Excludes 164 reported pedestrian fatalities (0.3 percent of all pedestrian fatalities) with missing age data. 13. Share of all trips made by walking by age taken from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. These range from 9.5 percent of all trips for people age 75 and older to 11.2 percent of all trips for people age zero to nineteen. 23 14. Gender-neutral icon courtesy of OliM via the Noun Project. Available from https://thenounproject.com. 15. Built environment data, including the presence of a crosswalk, were made available in the FARS dataset as of 2015. Between 2015 and 2017, pedestrian fatalities at intersections and crosswalks were more likely to be a person over 65 than a person under 65. 16. Excludes 5,420 reported pedestrian fatalities (11.0 percent of all pedestrian fatalities) with missing race and/or ethnicity data. 17. Share of all trips made by walking by race and ethnicity taken from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. These range from 9.9 percent of all trips for the White, Non-Hispanic population to 14.5 percent of all trips for the Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander population. 18. Rothstein R. (2017). The Color of Law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation. 19. Coughenour C, Clark S, Singh A, et al. (2017). Examining racial bias as a potential factor in pedestrian crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 98: 96-100. Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000145751630361X. 20. Consult the Methodology for a more detailed description of this analysis. 21. Gibbs K, Slater SJ, Nicholson N, et al. (2012.) “Income Disparities in Street Features that Encourage Walking.” Bridging the Gap Program, University of Illinois at Chicago. Available from http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/_asset/02fpi3/btg_street_walkability_ FINAL_03-09-12.pdf. DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

APPENDICES

Methodology Dangerous by Design uses several metrics to assess relative danger to pedestrians across different geographies and demographic characteristics. All pedestrian fatalities are reported within the 10-year timeframe of 2008 to 2017 to account for any large variations in fatalities in a single year. The 2016 edition of the report accounted for data between 2005 and 2014.

One measure of pedestrian fatality rates that this report cites across different demographic characteristics is pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 people. This metric accounts for the number of pedestrian deaths that are occurring within a certain population, while normalizing by the population itself. For example, all pedestrian deaths of people over the age of 65, normalized by the total population of people over 65. All population, race, age, and ethnicity data are from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, to ensure the most up-to-date information at the time of this report.

dtrin Dt o oution dtrin Dt r o oution in oution

The Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) takes pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people and normalizes it by walking rates. The count of pedestrian deaths or pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people may be much higher in an urban area than a rural area; however, that doesn’t account for how many people are walking. For geographic area PDI scores, such as the state and metropolitan statistical area (MSA)-level, walking rates are measured with Census “Means of Transportation to Work” data. While walk-to-work percentage is merely a proxy for the share of walking trips in an area, it is used because the metric is available uniformly across all states and the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas.

For demographic analysis of pedestrian fatalities across age, race, and ethnicity, we use a variation of PDI scores that includes the percentage of total trips that were walking trips is taken from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). These data were used because they report walking trips by age, race, and ethnicity as well as include walking percentage for all trips—not just journey to work trips. This information allows relative danger by age, race, and ethnicity to reflect whether these populations tend to walk more or less than the population as a whole. Due to the small sample size of the NHTS, the total percentage of walking trips is only appropriate to use for comparisons across race, age, and ethnicity at the national level.

dtrin Dt dtrin oution Dnr Ind rcnt o in ri DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

NHTSA FARS data do not include information about the household income of individuals who are struck and killed while walking; however, they do reveal where people are walking when they are killed. To analyze where pedestrian fatalities occur relative to median household income of the surrounding area, fatalities were joined to census tracts using GIS. The median household income of census tracts was grouped into quintiles to determine high- and low- income communities. Pedestrian deaths were then aggregated into these 5 tract types, and normalized by the population of the tracts. This analysis serves as a method to determine whether pedestrians die disproportionately in low-income areas.

To calculate the number of fatalities by MSA, a spatial join was performed with the longitude and latitude as reported by FARS. Approximately 126 fatalities did not include location data, and therefore there is a chance that the estimate of deaths per MSA is conservative.

25 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

TableState 1. Pedestrian State Pedestrian Danger Danger Index, Index, 2008-2017 2008-2017 Average Annual Pedestrian Fatalities Pedestrian Fatalities 2019 Pedestrian 2019 Rank State (2008-2017) per 100,000 (2008- Danger Index 2017) 1 Florida 5,433 2.73 182.0 2 Alabama 841 1.74 145.0 3 Delaware 250 2.67 127.1 4 Louisiana 1,047 2.25 125.0 5 Mississippi 551 1.84 122.7 6 Georgia 1,782 1.76 117.33 7 New Mexico 537 2.58 117.27 8 Texas 4,831 1.79 111.9 9 Arizona 1,503 2.23 111.5 10 South Carolina 1,144 2.37 107.8 11 Nevada 601 2.12 100.95 12 Tennessee 856 1.31 100.77 13 North Carolina 1,762 1.77 98.3 14 Oklahoma 596 1.54 85.6 15 Arkansas 427 1.44 84.7 16 California 7,127 1.84 68.2 17 Missouri 779 1.29 67.9 18 Maryland 1,059 1.78 65.9 19 Michigan 1,409 1.42 64.6 20 Kentucky 610 1.38 57.5 National Average 49,340 1.55 55.3 21 New Jersey 1,543 1.73 54.1 22 Indiana 725 1.10 52.4 23 Virginia 865 1.04 43.3 24 Utah 321 1.09 42.0 25 Connecticut 425 1.18 40.7 26 Ohio 1,058 0.91 39.6 26 27 West Virginia 214 1.16 38.7 28 Oregon 557 1.40 36.8 29 Colorado 590 1.10 36.7 30 Hawaii 226 1.60 36.4 31 Kansas 242 0.83 36.1 32 Illinois 1,323 1.03 33.2 33 Pennsylvania 1,502 1.17 30.0 34 Rhode Island 127 1.20 30.0 35 Washington 712 1.01 28.1 36 District of Columbia 101 1.53 26.8 37 Wisconsin 491 0.85 25.8 38 Idaho 121 0.74 25.5 39 Montana 130 1.27 24.9 40 North Dakota 62 0.84 24.7 41 New York 2,958 1.50 24.6 42 Maine 130 0.98 23.9 43 Minnesota 361 0.66 23.6 44 New Hampshire 97 0.73 23.6 45 Nebraska 116 0.62 23.0 46 Massachusetts 725 1.08 22.5 47 South Dakota 72 0.85 22.4 48 Wyoming 48 0.82 20.5 49 Iowa 210 0.68 19.4 50 Alaska 93 1.26 16.0 51 Vermont 50 0.80 13.8 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

ChangeTable 2. inChange Statewide in Statewide Pedestrian Pedestrian Danger DangerIndex Scores, Index Scores, 2016-2018 2016-2019 State 2016 PDI 2019 PDI Change 2016-2019 Delaware 102.6 127.1 24.5 Georgia 98.1 117.3 19.2 District of Columbia 15.4 26.8 11.4 Texas 101.1 111.9 10.8 Tennessee 90.5 100.8 10.3 Nevada 91.2 101.0 9.8 Oklahoma 76.1 85.6 9.5 Mississippi 114.1 122.7 8.6 Alabama 136.6 145.0 8.4 Louisiana 117.1 125.0 7.9 Missouri 60.2 67.9 7.7 Oregon 30.7 36.8 6.1 Indiana 46.3 52.4 6.1 Connecticut 34.9 40.7 5.8 Nebraska 17.3 23.0 5.7 Kansas 30.5 36.1 5.6 Florida 177.0 182.0 5.0 New Mexico 112.8 117.3 4.5 Arkansas 80.6 84.7 4.1 Maine 19.9 23.9 4.0 California 64.4 68.2 3.8 Michigan 61.0 64.6 3.6 Ohio 36.3 39.6 3.3 Utah 38.9 41.9 3.0 Arizona 108.5 111.5 3.0 Colorado 33.7 36.7 3.0 27 Kentucky 54.9 57.5 2.6 North Dakota 22.2 24.7 2.5 Vermont 11.4 13.8 2.5 North Carolina 96.3 98.3 2.0 Virginia 41.4 43.3 1.9 Idaho 23.8 25.5 1.7 Washington 26.5 28.1 1.6 New Hampshire 22.2 23.6 1.4 Alaska 14.6 16.0 1.4 South Carolina 106.5 107.7 1.2 Minnesota 22.6 23.6 1.0 New York 24.0 24.6 0.6 Massachusetts 22.1 22.5 0.4 Wisconsin 25.6 25.8 0.2 Iowa 19.7 19.4 -0.3 Pennsylvania 30.3 30.0 -0.3 South Dakota 22.8 22.4 -0.4 Illinois 34.0 33.2 -0.8 Wyoming 22.0 20.5 -1.5 Hawaii 38.3 36.4 -1.9 New Jersey 56.1 54.1 -2.0 Montana 27.1 24.9 -2.2 Rhode Island 32.3 30.0 -2.3 West Virginia 41.6 38.7 -2.9 Maryland 77.8 65.9 -11.9 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

Top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008- 2017Table 3: Top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008-2017

Annual Pedestrian 2019 2019 Pedestrian Metro Area Deaths Pedestrian Rank Fatalities per (2008-2017) Danger Index 100,000 1 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 656 2.82 313.3 2 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 212 3.45 265.4 3 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 165 2.94 245.0 4 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 194 2.58 234.6 5 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 162 2.54 230.9 6 Jacksonville, FL 419 2.94 226.2 7 Bakersfi eld, CA 247 2.83 217.7 8 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 148 2.17 217.0 9 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 900 3.07 204.7 10 Jackson, MS 111 1.92 192.0 11 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 297 2.21 184.2 12 Baton Rouge, LA 182 2.21 157.9 13 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 179 1.57 157.0 14 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 1,549 2.61 153.5 15 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 197 2.29 152.7 16 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 140 1.69 140.8 17 Albuquerque, NM 213 2.35 138.2 18 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 757 1.76 135.4 19 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 118 1.62 135.0 20 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 126 2.15 134.4 21 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 519 2.23 131.2 22 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 874 1.95 130.0 23 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 1,179 1.82 130.0 24 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 453 2.19 128.8 25 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 1,005 1.79 127.9 28 26 Fresno, CA 209 2.17 127.7 27 Greensboro-High Point, NC 121 1.62 124.6 28 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,037 1.49 124.2 29 Tulsa, OK 148 1.52 116.9 30 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 922 2.08 115.6 31 Raleigh, NC 170 1.37 114.2 32 Oklahoma City, OK 222 1.66 110.7 33 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 359 1.51 107.9 34 Stockton-Lodi, CA 151 2.11 105.5 35 Louisville/Jeff erson County, KY-IN 225 1.77 104.1 36 Knoxville, TN 105 1.23 102.5 37 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 232 1.29 99.2 38 El Paso, TX 173 2.07 98.6 39 Winston-Salem, NC 89 1.36 97.1 40 Austin-Round Rock, TX 303 1.56 91.8 41 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 269 1.37 91.3 42 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 257 2.06 89.6 43 St. Louis, MO-IL 393 1.40 87.5 44 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 165 2.27 87.3 45 Kansas City, MO-KS 234 1.13 86.9 46 Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA 407 1.81 86.2 47 Tucson, AZ 199 1.98 86.1 48 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 281 1.45 80.6 49 Richmond, VA 175 1.39 77.2 50 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 2,520 1.91 76.4 51 Wichita, KS 68 1.06 70.7 52 Salt Lake City, UT 155 1.34 70.5 53 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 67 1.21 67.2 54 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 610 1.87 64.5 55 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 496 1.78 63.6 56 Ogden-Clearfi eld, UT 66 1.04 61.2 57 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 352 1.28 58.2 National Average 49,340 1.55 55.3 58 Chattanooga, TN-GA 60 1.10 55.0 59 Columbus, OH 225 1.13 53.8 60 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 111 1.08 51.4 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

Top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index, 2008- 2017

Annual Pedestrian 2019 2019 Pedestrian Metro Area Deaths Pedestrian Rank Fatalities per (2008-2017) Danger Index 100,000 61 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 86 1.02 51.0 62 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 145 1.20 50.0 63 Columbia, SC 175 2.19 49.8 64 Toledo, OH 72 1.19 49.6 65 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,045 1.73 46.8 66 Akron, OH 56 0.80 44.4 67 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 49 0.80 44.4 68 Buff alo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 131 1.15 44.2 69 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 102 1.23 43.9 70 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 194 0.90 42.9 71 Dayton, OH 85 1.06 42.4 72 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA 78 1.39 42.1 73 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 178 1.13 41.9 74 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 70 1.25 41.7 75 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 213 1.24 41.3 76 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 764 1.27 39.7 77 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 101 1.07 39.6 78 New Haven-Milford, CT 121 1.41 38.1 79 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 57 1.05 36.2 80 Boise City, ID 43 0.65 36.1 81 Omaha-Council Bluff s, NE-IA 59 0.65 36.1 82 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 162 0.79 35.9 83 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 288 1.22 35.8 84 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 106 1.21 34.6 85 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 1,022 1.07 34.5 29 86 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 195 1.21 33.6 87 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 659 1.44 33.5 88 Worcester, MA-CT 102 1.10 33.3 89 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 237 0.68 30.9 90 Urban Honolulu, HI 154 1.56 30.6 91 Rochester, NY 110 1.02 29.1 92 Pittsburgh, PA 211 0.90 27.3 93 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 3,210 1.60 27.1 94 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 360 0.98 26.5 95 Springfi eld, MA 76 1.21 24.7 96 Syracuse, NY 71 1.07 23.8 97 Colorado Springs, CO 55 0.80 23.5 98 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 465 0.98 19.6 99 Madison, WI 56 0.88 18.0 100 Provo-Orem, UT 45 0.78 17.3 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

TableChange 4: Change in Metropolitan in Metropolitan Statistical Statistical Areas Areas Pedestrian Pedestrian DangerDanger Index Index Scores, 2016-2019 Scores, 2016-2018 Change 2016- Metro Area 2016 PDI 2019 PDI 2019 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 148.2 234.6 86.4 Bakersfi eld, CA 132.8 217.7 84.9 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 234.7 313.3 78.6 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 101.2 152.7 51.5 Baton Rouge, LA 120.6 157.9 37.3 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 228.2 265.4 37.2 Fresno, CA 95.4 127.7 32.3 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 153.3 184.2 30.9 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 200.6 230.9 30.3 Greensboro-High Point, NC 96.0 124.6 28.6 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 104.5 131.2 26.7 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 132.1 157.0 24.9 Albuquerque, NM 113.6 138.2 24.6 Oklahoma City, OK 86.7 110.7 24.0 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 118.8 140.8 22.0 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 69.9 91.3 21.4 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 107.2 127.9 20.7 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 114.8 134.4 19.6 St. Louis, MO-IL 69.7 87.5 17.8 Salt Lake City, UT 53.0 70.5 17.5 Knoxville, TN 85.5 102.5 17.0 Austin-Round Rock, TX 77.8 91.8 14.0 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 110.4 124.2 13.8 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 192.0 204.7 12.7 El Paso, TX 86.8 98.6 11.8 30 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 124.2 135.4 11.2 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 117.7 128.8 11.1 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 39.6 50.0 10.4 Colorado Springs, CO 13.5 23.5 10.0 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 235.2 245.0 9.8 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 77.9 87.3 9.4 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 98.5 107.9 9.4 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 145.1 153.5 8.4 Kansas City, MO-KS 79.2 86.9 7.7 Columbus, OH 46.2 53.8 7.6 Raleigh, NC 106.7 114.2 7.5 Louisville/Jeff erson County, KY-IN 96.7 104.1 7.4 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 127.9 135.0 7.1 Dayton, OH 35.4 42.4 7.0 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 27.8 34.6 6.8 Omaha-Council Bluff s, NE-IA 29.5 36.1 6.6 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 69.8 76.4 6.6 Tulsa, OK 110.5 116.9 6.4 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 92.9 99.2 6.3 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 30.0 36.2 6.2 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 35.5 41.7 6.2 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 30.3 35.9 5.6 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 34.1 39.6 5.5 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 75.1 80.6 5.5 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 37.5 42.9 5.4 New Haven-Milford, CT 33.1 38.1 5.0 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 125.1 130.0 4.9 Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA 81.3 86.2 4.9 Boise City, ID 31.3 36.1 4.8 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 31.3 35.9 4.6 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 37.1 41.3 4.2 Buff alo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 40.7 44.2 3.5 Tucson, AZ 82.6 86.1 3.5 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 38.6 41.9 3.3 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 127.2 130.0 2.8 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 44.0 46.8 2.8 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 28.2 30.9 2.7 Stockton-Lodi, CA 102.9 105.5 2.6 Jackson, MS 189.6 192.0 2.4 Wichita, KS 68.5 70.7 2.2 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas Pedestrian Danger Index Scores, 2016-2018 Change 2016- Metro Area 2016 PDI 2019 PDI 2019 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 31.4 33.5 2.1 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 24.7 26.5 1.8 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 62.7 64.5 1.8 Worcester, MA-CT 31.7 33.3 1.6 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 18.0 19.6 1.6 Toledo, OH 48.0 49.6 1.6 Madison, WI 16.4 18.0 1.6 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 88.7 89.6 0.9 Syracuse, NY 23.0 23.8 0.8 Pittsburgh, PA 26.6 27.3 0.7 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 51.1 51.4 0.3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 34.2 34.5 0.3 Rochester, NY 29.0 29.1 0.1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 27.0 27.1 0.1 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 67.3 67.2 -0.1 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 58.7 58.2 -0.5 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA 42.7 42.1 -0.6 Akron, OH 46.0 44.4 -1.6 Chattanooga, TN-GA 56.8 55.0 -1.8 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 65.7 63.6 -2.1 Provo-Orem, UT 19.5 17.3 -2.2 Jacksonville, FL 228.7 226.2 -2.6 Winston-Salem, NC 99.7 97.1 -2.6 Urban Honolulu, HI 33.9 30.6 -3.3 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 54.4 51.0 -3.4 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 47.5 43.9 -3.6 31 Springfi eld, MA 28.3 24.7 -3.6 Richmond, VA 81.0 77.2 -3.8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 43.5 39.7 -3.8 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 38.0 33.6 -4.4 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 49.7 44.4 -5.3 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 123.4 115.6 -7.8 Columbia, SC 62.6 49.7 -12.8 Ogden-Clearfi eld, UT 74.4 61.2 -13.2 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 283.1 217.0 -66.1 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Appendices

32 [ this page intentionally blank ] DANGEROUS BY DESIGN Introduction

DANGEROUS

2019 BY DESIGN

33 The News & Observer

First study of e-scooter ER visits reveals exactly how riders (and walkers) get hurt

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation- world/national/article225198400.html#storylink=cpy

The first-ever study on the public health impact of e-scooters reveals how and why the devices send riders and non-riders to emergency rooms, according to researchers.

University of California Los Angeles experts discovered that — of nearly 250 patients who went to L.A. area emergency rooms during a one-year period with electric scooter-related injuries — only 4.4 percent were definitely wearing helmets and 8.4 percent weren’t even riding the scooters themselves, according to the study published Friday by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“There are thousands of riders now using these scooters, so it’s more important than ever to understand their impact on public health,” Dr. Tarak Trivedi, the study’s lead author and an emergency doctor at the school’s David Geffen School of Medicine, said in a statement.

But are e-scooters any more dangerous than riding a bike or walking? Researchers looked at how many bicycle injuries and pedestrian injuries sent people to the two emergency rooms over the same period, and found 195 biking visits and 181 for walkers — far fewer than the 249 ER visits associated with scooters, according to the study.

The scooters can hit speeds up to 15 miles per hour — and while companies recommend riders strap on a helmet and be over 18, those recommendations are often ignored, the authors said.

Researchers saw firsthand that helmet use is rare: They watched e-scooter riders zip around Los Angeles for seven hours in September 2018 and found that 94 percent of the 193 riders they spotted was helmetless.

Researchers said their findings mean “injuries associated with electric scooter use were common, ranged in severity, and suggest low rates of adherence to existing regulations around rider age and low rates of helmet use.”

Restricting the study to just Southern California was, in some ways, to the study’s benefit. Though the e-scooters now dot sidewalks in dozens of cities in the United States and abroad, they first popped up in the Los Angeles area in 2017, researchers said.

“We have the unique ability to describe injuries associated with electric scooters that were severe enough to trigger an emergency department (ED) visit,” UCLA researchers wrote. But leaders from e-scooter companies, which have deployed the rentable dockless devices by the thousands, described the study as flawed.

Paul Steely White, safety policy director for e-scooter start-up Bird, said in a statement that the study “fails to put e-scooter injuries into context as they relate to the high number and severity of injuries and deaths caused by motorcycles and automobiles,” ABC reports.

“We hope to have the opportunity to work with the report’s authors so that we can have a productive and collaborative conversation that focuses on proven preventative measures and education,” White said, according to ABC.

Representatives from Lime, another major e-scooter company, said in a statement that safety is its “number one priority” and that “continued government investment in protected bike lanes and paths is critical,” the Washington Post reports.

Roughly 30 percent of the people with scooter injuries taken to the two emergency rooms from September 2017 to 2018 came by ambulance — “an indication of the severity of their injuries,” researchers said. UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica and Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center were the two hospitals studied.

Falls were responsible for the vast majority of the injuries — around 80 percent, according to researchers. Next most common was a collision with an object, which caused 11 percent of injuries, followed by “being struck by a moving vehicle such as a car, bicycle or other scooter,” which triggered 9 percent of ER visits, researchers said.

The non-riders who got hurt included walkers who tripped on a discarded scooter and people hit by someone riding a scooter. Doctors judged 5 percent of the people with scooter injuries to be drunk, or to have blood alcohol content above 0.05 percent, the study found.

Head injuries were most common, resulting in 40 percent of ER visits, followed by fractures at 32 percent and cuts, bruises or sprains at 28 percent.

Of the 249 people brought to the L.A. emergency rooms over the year-long period, 15 were ultimately admitted to a hospital — and two of those had to be put in intensive care, researchers said. Researchers decided not to include 74 possibly scooter-related ER visits in the study because they “lacked sufficient documentation.”

The authors said scooters are particularly important to study because they’re so common in many cities.

Dr. Joann Elmore, a professor of medicine at UCLA and the study’s senior author said in a statement that “unlike Segway transporters, standing electric scooters will have a substantial impact on public health given their low cost, popularity and broad accessibility.”

Tampa Reopens Bid Process for e-Scooters, Drawing Interest from Uber, Bolt and More

By Veronica Brezina-Smith - January 24, 2019

Uber wants to expand its shared electric scooter program across the states, including Tampa as the city reopened its bid process for vendors.

“We are expanding across the country in both bikes and scooters,” Kasra Moshkani, director and general manager at Uber, said during the Synapse Summit at Amalie Arena on Jan. 23.

He gave the example of how Uber recently purchased startup JUMP, which offers bike and scooter sharing services in over 15 cities throughout the country.

Uber also invested in Lime, an e-scooter company.

The city of Tampa has been interested in launching a shared e-scooter dockless pilot program, which has attracted a lot of attention. However, city leaders decided to reissue the request for applications to modify the indemnification language in the earlier application.

Uber has not yet submitted a new application, but JUMP did submit a prior application before the request was reissued.

These are the current vendors to date that have submitted an application since the request has been reissued:

• Bolt Mobility in Miami Beach • Frank Underwood Law in Tampa • Greenberg Traurig in Tampa • Roll Labs Inc. in New York, NY • RSA Consulting Group LLC in Brandon • VeoRideMobility in Chicago

The city is still seeking applications to select up to three operators to provide motorized scooter sharing services in designated areas as part of a Shared Motorized Scooter Pilot Program.

There’s a pre-bid conference on Jan. 29 at the Tampa City Council Chambers for interested parties. All applications are due by Feb. 11.

The program is expected to launch in April and last for 12 months. Operators will be responsible for sharing revenue and operational data, communicating with the city, addressing public complaints, and resolving any operational issues that may arise, according to the RFP.

The city will evaluate the firms based on its experiences, project team, equipment, operational plan and safety. Each operator will deploy an initial fleet of up to a 600 motorized scooter vehicles that will initially be deployed near transit stations, commercial areas and denser residential areas.

The areas are:

• Downtown: 100 total motorized scooters • West of downtown area: 100 total motorized scooters • North of downtown area: 100 total motorized scooters • East of downtown area: 100 total motorized scooters • Expansion area: 200 total motorized scooters

Those areas will also have scooter parking corrals.

The city specifically states that the scooters will not be allowed on The Tampa Riverwalk, the Bayshore Boulevard sidewalk and 7th Avenue and on any private property.

At the end of the period, the city may select one vendor to serve the entire area. https://www.americaninno.com/tampabay/news/tampa-reopens-bid-process-for-e-scooters- drawing-interest-from-uber-bolt-and-more/

2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

2019 Event Overview Date: April 5‐6, 2019

Presented by Genesis Adventures, Inc. 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Race Format: Running Race: 200+ Mile Relay

The 2nd Annual Florida Coast to Coast relay is a 200 mile point‐to‐point relay with male, female, and co‐ed teams of 12 covering 200 miles, with racers taking turns throughout the day and night to cover the distance. While each team member is running their section of the course, their teammates shuttle ahead via their own vans to the next relay checkpoint to await the approaching team member.

Teams will run from east to west along the Coast‐to‐Coast Trail. System, as well as roads when necessary, starting at Sand Point Park in Titusville and finishing up at the beautiful Fred Howard Park in Tarpon Springs.

Estimated Time on Course: 24‐36 Hours Course Map: runners travel east to west on bike paths, bike lanes sidewalks. NO ROAD CLOSURES REQUIRED Blue bubbles indicate Transition Areas. Orange stars indicate van exchange locations. Racers will use vehicles to leapfrog ahead to next Transition Area.

. 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Start Line Venue: Sand Point Park 101 N Washington Ave Titusville, FL 32796 Requirements: Parking: Maximum of 50 spaces

Use of Main Pavilion

Early morning access for set up: 4:00am . 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Start Line Venue: Sand Point Park 101 N Washington Ave, Titusville, FL 32796

Weekend Schedule: Friday, April 5th, 2019

5:00am First Available Start Times ‐ 10 teams released every 30 minutes

10:30am Last Available Start Time ‐ 6 minute mile pace

11:00am Teardown ‐ Event Staff departs venue.

*Racers are released in waves of 10 every so as to avoid congestion or large groups of runners on the trails and roads. Runners will be spread out across the course, mostly running single file. 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Finish Line Venue: Fred Howard Park 1700 Sunset Drive Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Requirements: Parking: Estimated 80 Parking Spaces 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Finish Line Venue: Fred Howard Park 1700 Sunset Drive, Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Weekend Schedule: Saturday, April 6th, 2019

12:00pm Finish Line Setup 2:00pm First racers finishing 6:30pm Finish Line cutoff . *Estimated Time on Course: 24‐36 hours. 36 hours is the maximum allowed. 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Safety & Required Equipment

Safety & Required Equipment • There will be a mandatory safety meeting prior to the start of each wave and at a 2nd location on course (TBD) to ensure all racers are aware of rules before they start their run • All members of each team vehicle are required to be present • Runners will be on on bike paths, bike lanes, and sidewalks as . necessary • NO ROAD CLOSURES REQUIRED • When running on a road is required, it is recommended that competitors run against traffic for maximum visibility • Runners will cross intersections as pedestrians, and must adhere to typical pedestrian laws. I.e. cross the street on red light only • When running at night, all runners are required to wear a reflective vest, LED headlamp, and flashing LED lights • Recommended that runners carry cell phone and photo ID at all times • Each team vehicle is required to carry: first aid kid, spare batteries, water, ice, electrolytes. 2018 Florida Coast 2 Coast Relay

Transition Areas (TA’s)

Transition Areas Runner transition areas are located approximately every 7‐10 miles, based on space availability. TA’s are staffed with C2C staff and/ or volunteers. Communication is managed via cell phones, or radios in weak cell areas Each runner that checks into a TA has their time recorded to en. sure all runners have reached the TA. Each runner that leaves a TA has their time recorded to ensure how many racers have entered the next section of the course.

Transition Area Footprint ‐ 10x10 pop up tent – Qty 2 ‐ Portajohn – Qty 1 or 2 – based on attendance ‐ Energy bars, water ‐ 30 gallon garbage can – Qty 2 ‐ Parking: 10‐20 cars at one time (maximum)