Socioeconomics, the Built Environment and Pedestrian ...

Running head: Pedestrian Safety 1

Socioeconomics, the Built Environment

and Pedestrian Safety in Central Florida

Best Foot Forward Crosswalk Observation and Data Collection @ Pine Hills Rd & Alhambra Dr 12.02.19

Zara Abid, Alexander Leon-Rivera,

Jason Sartorio, Randy Schrader,

James Smith

PAD 6716 Final Paper

Fall 2019

Pedestrian Safety 2

Abstract

Central Florida leads the nation in the number of pedestrian deaths on its roadways, taking the

top spot as the most dangerous metropolitan area for pedestrians in the overall worst state for

walkers (Dangerous by Design, 2019). However, some Central Florida communities experience

much higher rates of pedestrian crashes than others. Two factors that contribute to this disparity

include the socioeconomic status of the community and elements of the built environment. Using

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, this research explores the role both factors play

in the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes in two Central Florida communities, Pine

Hills and Baldwin Park. Elements of the built environment such as lower speed limits and better

lighting along with a higher percentage of households with cars leads to safer roads and fewer

crashes in planned communities such as Baldwin Park. Sprawling, unplanned lower-income

neighborhoods the likes of Pine Hills have poor infrastructure combined with large numbers of

people walking to work or bus stops, leading to an increased number of walkers struck by

vehicles. While some of these issues can be difficult to address, improvements to the built

environment can make streets safer for walkers in all communities.

Pedestrian Safety 3

Background and Justification

Increasingly, streets are becoming more dangerous for pedestrians. More than 13 people

per day are struck and killed by drivers every day across America (Dangerous by Design, 2019).

Florida in particular consistently ranks among the worse place for pedestrians in the United

States, claiming eight of the top 10 spots in Smart Growth America’s Dangerous by Design 2019

(2019) rankings of the most dangerous areas for walking based on the number of pedestrians

struck and killed by drivers and controlling for population and percentage of people who walk to

work. The top spot in 2019 belongs to the Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford metro area with 656

pedestrian deaths between 2008 and 2017 with an average of 2.82 per 100,000 people. But when

it comes to pedestrian crashes, all Central Florida communities are not created equally.

Socioeconomic factors and differences in the built environment can lead to substantial

differences in the number of pedestrian-related crashes form one community to the next. This

study focuses on two local communities, Pine Hills and Baldwin Park, in order to understand

these differences and identify next steps for future improvements.

Socioeconomics plays an important role in crash frequency with significant disparities

between poor and affluent areas. Pedestrian crashes are four times more likely in low-income

neighborhoods, according to Chakravarthy, Anderson, Ludlow, Lotfipour, and Vaca (2010). In

their study of Orange County, CA, using GIS and census tract data, they found that each one-

percent increase in percentage of low-income residents resulted in a 2.8 percent increase in

pedestrian crashes. They also demonstrated that other factors such as age, education, population

density and English fluency were associated with more crashes. But adding the variable of low

income to regression analysis of these factors demonstrated that poverty was the single-biggest

factor (Chakravarthy et al., 2010).

Pedestrian Safety 4

Utilizing GIS mapping, Chimba, Musinguzi and Kidando (2018) demonstrated that low

car ownership leads to a higher risk of pedestrian crashes due to increased exposure resulting

from a greater volume of foot traffic. Other factors they cite for elevated risk include high

population density and a concentration of commercial areas. Likewise, Siddiqui, Abdel-Aty, and

Choi (2014) examined areas defined as environmental justice (EJ) areas with low-income and

minority populations. They found that factors such as high population density, unemployment,

and low car ownership is positively associated with pedestrian crashes. “Higher pedestrian

activities result in higher pedestrian exposure which, as mentioned before, will increase the

possibility of pedestrian related crashes (Siddiqui et al., 2014).”

While economically disadvantaged areas pose a higher risk for pedestrian crashes, more

affluent neighborhoods appear to be safer. Communities where more people commute by car and

that have a higher median household income experience a reduced frequency of pedestrian

crashes (Chimba et al., 2018). People in these communities are more likely to afford reliable

transportation. People who own cars don’t need to walk to work or bus stops, thereby reducing

their exposure risk.

The built environment also significantly impacts the frequency of pedestrian crashes.

Using GIS to identify clusters of pedestrians injured in crashes, Dai (2012) found extremely

elevated risks for crashes in high-activity suburban corridors where high-speed state highways

intersect local streets, an environment matching the conditions in Pine Hills. Other common

elements of the built environment include a mixture of business and residential properties with

multiple lanes and fewer sidewalks and crosswalks. More specifically, both Pine Hills and the

clusters identified by Dai (2012) have arterial roads with 45 mph speed limits; in Pine Hills these

include State Road 50, Silver Star Road and segments of Pine Hills Road. Having these types of

Pedestrian Safety 5

roads in close proximity to commercial and residential corridors creates “high-risk zones for

pedestrian injuries, where pedestrians have to negotiate with heavy fast-speed traffic on wide

streets (Dai, 2012).” On arterial roads and major collectors, pedestrians face 50 times higher risk

than lower-speed environments (Garder, 2004).

Another significant contributing factor of pedestrian crashes due to the built environment

is poor lighting, which considerably raises the risk for pedestrian injuries (Dai, 2012). More than

half of all fatal pedestrian crashes happen at night, where drivers often report they don’t see

pedestrians before crashes (Retting, Ferguson & McCartt, 2003). Adequate street lighting at

pedestrian crossing can reduce the odds of fatal pedestrian injury 42 percent at midblock

locations and by 54 percent at intersections (Siddiqui, 2006). A study in Pinellas County,

Florida, confirmed that night-time pedestrian crashes were more frequent along segments of road

with low lighting levels than those that are well lit (Zhou & Hsu, 200).

Research Questions

This research focuses on two factors that may account for the disparities in the number of

pedestrian crashes in the Central Florida communities of Pine Hills and Baldwin Park, each with

differing socioeconomic and surrounding built environment conditions:

1. Are differing socioeconomic conditions in Pine Hills and Baldwin Park correlated to the

number of pedestrian crashes?

2. Do aspects of the built environment in Pine Hills and Baldwin Park contribute to the

frequency of pedestrian crashes?

Methodology

Study Setting/Neighborhood Profiles

Pedestrian Safety 6

The observed areas in this comparison of Pine Hills in Orange County, Florida, and the

Baldwin Park neighborhood within the City of Orlando vary immensely. Each area has a unique

history and set of circumstances occurring over time resulting in the distinct neighborhood

characteristics observed today. Various styles of developments—redevelopments, or lack

thereof—along with road networks from the period or style the respective neighborhoods were

conceived under, have been equally influential in the statistics examined under this comparison.

Pine Hills Neighborhood Profile

The Pine Hills Community is located seven miles northwest of downtown Orlando in

northwest unincorporated Orange County. The community contains 12.25 square miles of land

area with the general boundaries of Apopka-Vineland Road to the west, Clarcona-Ocoee Road

(SR 431) to the north, the Orlando City limits to the east, and the East-West Expressway (SR

408) to the south (Pine Hills Neighborhood Improvement District, 2015). Within this

comparison, the focus area has been narrowed down to a smaller area bounded by North

Hiawassee Road to the west, North Lane to the North, Pine Hills Road to the east, and Colonial

Drive to the south.

Pine Hills began as a series of large-scale subdivision developments in 1953 following a

nationwide pattern of post-World War II suburban development. The various developments

composing the greater Pine Hills area became a bedroom community for large and major

employers growing in Orlando at the time, including Martin Marietta Company, now known as

Lockheed Martin (Pine Hills NID, 2015). Road networks and the development of new homes in

Pine Hills followed the emerging trend of prioritizing private ownership and vehicle access, as

was the intention for suburban bedroom communities. The residential street grids do not entirely

connect and are cumbersome to navigate, resulting in a relative few major arterial thoroughfares

Pedestrian Safety 7

handling the majority of traffic volume, particularly Colonial Drive (SR 50), Silver Star Road

(SR 438), Hiawassee Road and the Pine Hills Road corridor included in our study.

By the late 1980s and through the 1990s, a significant increase in crime and overall

decline plagued the community. A greater sense of blight ensued as lack of investment caused

streets and properties to fall into disrepair and further economic instability resulted from the

market collapse of 2008 (Pine Hills NID, 2015). Over time, the demographics of the census

tracts consisting of Pine Hills created an average poverty rate of nearly 30 percent, with some

tracts as high as 41percent, as noted in Table 1. Furthermore, an average of 8.2 percent of

households, 1,182, in the Pine Hills area do not own a vehicle with some census tracts reaching

16.40 percent (US Department of Agriculture, 2015).

Table 1. Pine Hills Census Tracts (U.S Census Bureau, 2017

Census Tract Low Veh Access Households Percentage Population Poverty Level

187 238 2076 11.50% 5629 41.50%

120 288 1760 16.40% 5696 33.90%

121 163 1863 8.70% 5488 24.60%

122.02 86 1362 6.30% 4539 30.70%

122.01 50 1517 3.30% 4716 27.50%

124.03 120 1454 8.20% 4263 24.20%

123.07 139 2004 7% 6194 23.10%

123.04 98 2318 4.20% 6806 23.10%

Total/Avg 1182 14,354 8.2% (avg) 43331 28.58%

Baldwin Park Neighborhood Profile

The Baldwin Park Community is located 3.5 miles northeast of downtown Orlando

within the northeastern-most portion of the city limits. The community contains 1,100 acres (1.7

sq mi) bound by the Cady Way Trail to the east and south, Bennet Road, Corrine Drive and

General Reese Avenue to the west, and Glenridge Way, Gary Avenue and the Orlando VA Lake

Baldwin Clinic making up the northern boundary. These boundaries are also in line with the

focus area of this comparison and are roughly in-line with the 32814 ZIP code.

Pedestrian Safety 8

The Baldwin Park community lies on land that was previously used for military purposes.

From World War II through the mid-1990s, the site was first known as the Orlando Army Air

station and eventually became the Naval Training Center (NTC) Main Base. By 1993, the federal

government identified NTC Orlando as a facility targeted for closure under the Federal Base

Realignment and Closure Commission (City of Orlando, n.d.).

The City of Orlando established the Base Reuse and Urban Design Vision Plan through

community input to guide transition of the property and facilities. This included a comprehensive

mix of uses, linking the site with the surrounding neighborhood, public access to lakes, a main

street, and a gridded street network all incorporating the use of Traditional Neighborhood Design

(TND) principles. As development teams were being selected for negotiations, city staff and

planners were assigned to each of the teams ensuring the city’s vision and objectives and for the

natural environment were incorporated, regardless of which development proposal was selected

(City of Orlando, n.d.). Through multiple negotiations between Orlando, the U.S. Navy and

developers, the site was sold in its entirety to one sole developer.

Presently, the Baldwin Park neighborhood has nearly been fully built-out, completely

adhering to the strict development standards of New Urbanism and TND. Since development, the

Baldwin Park neighborhood has become a desirable community with a relatively high median

household income (U.S. Census, 2017). Poverty levels within the community average 5.7 percent

of the population, as noted in Table 2. An average of 1.44 percent, or 63 households have no

access to a vehicle (USDA, 2015).

Table 2. Baldwin Park Neighborhood Census Tract (U.S Census Bureau, 2017)

Census Tract Low Veh Access Households Percentage Population Poverty Level

182 63 3,416 1.44% 7998 5.7%

Pedestrian Safety 9

Data Sources

Sources Layers

Pedestrian Crashes

in Baldwin Park

City of Orlando GIS

Database; Lynx GIS

Database;

MetroPlan Orlando

GIS Database; U.S.

Census Bureau

Census Tract GIS

Database

Neighborhood Boundaries and Roads data were downloaded

from the City of Orlando Database. Bus Stop locations were

downloaded from the Lynx Database; Pedestrian Crash data

was downloaded through the MetroPlan Orlando Database;

Orange County Census Tracts were downloaded from the U.S.

Census Bureau Database.

Pedestrian Crashes

in Pine Hills

Orange County GIS

Database; Lynx GIS

Database;

MetroPlan Orlando

GIS Database; U.S.

Census Bureau

Census Tract GIS

Database

Roads data was downloaded from the Orange County database;

Bus Stop locations were downloaded from the Lynx Database;

Pedestrian Crash data was downloaded through the

MetroPlan Orlando Database; Orange County Census Tracts

were downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau Database.

Built Environment

and Pedestrian

Crosswalk Accidents

in Baldwin Park

City of Orlando GIS

Database;

MetroPlan Orlando

GIS Database; U.S.

Census Bureau

Census Tract GIS

Database

Neighborhood Boundaries and Roads data were downloaded

from the City of Orlando Database. Pedestrian Crash data was

downloaded through the MetroPlan Orlando Database; Orange

County Census Tracts were downloaded from the U.S. Census

Bureau Database.

Built Environment

and Pedestrian

Crosswalk Accidents

in Pine Hills

Orange County GIS

Database;

MetroPlan Orlando

GIS Database; U.S.

Census Bureau

Census Tract GIS

Database

Roads data were downloaded from the Orange County

database and does not include speed limits which is a limitation

of the research; Pedestrian Crash data was downloaded

through the MetroPlan Orlando Database; Orange County

Census Tracts were downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau

Database.

The Pedestrian Crashes in Baldwin Park dataset was created by first extracting Baldwin

Park from the Orlando Neighborhoods dataset by utilizing the Select by Attribute Feature. Once

Baldwin Park was added to the dataset as its own layer, roads, pedestrian crashes, and Lynx Bus

stops datasets were then incorporated into the maps. This process was done by clipping each

individual dataset using the Baldwin Park Neighborhood dataset as the clip feature. Similar steps

were completed for the Pedestrian Crashes in Pine Hills dataset, except in this case the Pine Hills

Neighborhood was extracted from the Orange County Census Tract dataset utilizing the Select

Features Tool. Once the five Census tracts were extracted, the Dissolve Tool was utilized to

Pedestrian Safety 10

remove the census tract boundaries to create one neighborhood layer. Roads, pedestrian crashes,

and Lynx Bus stops were then clipped using the Pine Hills Neighborhood dataset as the clip

feature.

The built environment dataset for Baldwin Park was created utilizing the Baldwin Park

Neighborhood layer, Baldwin Park Roads layer, and Baldwin Park Pedestrian crashes layer

created for the previous dataset. Next, speed limits were displayed by taking the roads layer and

adjusting the symbology to categorize by unique values using speed as the value field. To display

lighting conditions for crosswalk accidents, the Baldwin Park Pedestrian crashes layer was

utilized. Through the select by attributes feature, both location (within a crosswalk) and lighting

conditions (dusk, dawn, nighttime – no lighting) were selected and exported, and added to the

dataset as a new layer. The same step was completed for yield data, with the attributes selected

being location (within a crosswalk) and cause of the accident (either pedestrian failed to yield, or

motorist failed to yield). Finally, Crosswalk study locations were added to the dataset by

creating a shapefile and adding the points to the dataset manually. The same steps were followed

to create the Pine Hills built environment dataset, except speed limits were not included due to a

dataset limitation.

Results

Overall, the GIS datasets created for this assessment had some conclusive results when

comparing pedestrian crash data in two different socioeconomic neighborhoods. As displayed in

the figure located in Appendix A, between January of 2014 to June of 2019, there were a total of

nine pedestrian crashes that occurred in Baldwin Park. In addition, there are a total of 10 Lynx

Bus stops located in Baldwin Park. In comparison, as displayed in Appendix B, between January

Pedestrian Safety 11

2014 to June 2019 there were 155 pedestrian crashes in Pine Hills and there is a total of 99 Lynx

bus stops.

The GIS datasets for the built environment were created to analyze several factors of the

built environment: speed limits, lighting and crosswalks. As displayed in the dataset located in

Appendix C, most of the roads located in Baldwin Park have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Of the nine pedestrian crashes that occurred between January 2014 and June 2019, six occurred

when a pedestrian was struck in a crosswalk; of these six pedestrian accidents in a crosswalk,

two of them occurred due to low lighting conditions. Similarly, of the six pedestrian accidents

that occurred in a crosswalk, three ere categorized as being the result of the motorist failing to

yield, while the other three were categorized as being the result of the pedestrian failing to yield.

Unfortunately, speed limits could not be compared between Baldwin Park and Pine Hills

due to data limitations. However, based on our literature research it appears that Pine Hills Road,

a focus of the Best Foot Forward Program field research discussed below, is classified as a

Minor Arterial with a speed limit of 40 mph. This speed limit is higher than the typical 25 mph

or lower posted speed limits in Baldwin Park. As displayed in Appendix D, of the 155 pedestrian

crashes that occurred in Pine Hills between January 2014 and June 2019, 28 occurred when a

pedestrian was struck in a crosswalk. Of these 28 pedestrian crosswalk accidents, 19 occurred

during low lighting conditions. Also, of the 28 pedestrian crosswalk accidents, 22 were

categorized as being the result of the motorist failing to yield, while the other six were

categorized as being a result of the pedestrian failure to yield.

Building from the data gathered regarding crashes in crosswalks due to motorists’ failure

to yield, this analysis looked at a yield study through the Best Foot Forward Program. It shows

yield averages between 2012 and 2019 for three crosswalks in Pine Hills and four crosswalks in

Pedestrian Safety 12

Baldwin Park, which are all marked with a blue diamond in the datasets located in Appendix C

and Appendix D. As displayed below in Table 3, the four crosswalks located in Baldwin Park

had average yield rates ranging between 61 percent and 92 percent. In comparison, the three

crosswalk locations in Pine Hills had average yield rates ranging between 15 percent and 19

percent.

Table 3: Best Foot Forward Crosswalk Yield Study, 2012-2019 Averages.

Conclusion

Many communities today of all socioeconomic statuses struggle with safety needs and the

impacts of the built environment in which they live, work, socialize and recreate. However, older

neighborhoods constructed around the automobile with sprawling networks of roads are often

affected the most. This is the case for Pine Hills, a low-income area comprised of predominately

minority populations in a community that is already distressed socially and economically.

Solutions to complicated problems such as the built environment can be addressed by

means of best practices and governmental policies aimed to improve physical infrastructure.

However, complex challenges related to socioeconomics, specifically behavior, requires

overcoming deep-rooted, obscure behavioral changes to interconnected matters facing our

Pedestrian Safety 13

communities. For example, bad driver conduct (poor yield rates) and pedestrian behavior (failure

to cross at properly designated intersections) are complex issues; regulating a person’s actions is

intangible and likely only possible by mitigating conduct through education and enforcement.

The data herein suggests that the economically disadvantaged, older neighborhood of

Pine Hills postures a higher risk for pedestrian crashes, while the newer, more well-off Baldwin

Park neighborhood emerges safer. Baldwin Park, for comparison, boasts higher median

household incomes, has more people commuting by single-occupancy automobile trips, and

appears to experience a reduced incidence of pedestrian crashes. This could be due to a number

of reasons, including greater access to reliable transportation, meaning residents need not rely on

public transportation or walking to work. This reduces their exposure associated with hazardous

active transportation options persistent throughout the region as proven by Central Florida’s top

ranking for pedestrian deaths. Little currently needs to be done to address walkability, bicycling

and overall mobility within the community with the exception that designated bike lanes are in

the door zone of the on-street parking. Otherwise, Baldwin Park is a sustainable and thriving

community. Pine Hills, on the other hand, has large numbers of people walking to work and

using public transit out of necessity, therefore, increasing their exposure to hazardous conditions.

In order to address the socioeconomic differences and safety of Pine Hills and other

disadvantaged communities in the region, administrative bodies need to provide progressive,

valued policies and adequate funding in order encourage suitable transportation and provide

guidelines for tenable, safe environments for its citizens to thrive, not just get by. Just as urban

sprawl has had undesirable effects on the built environment and existing social systems,

unequitable transportation networks can have equally negative affects; however, providing a

Pedestrian Safety 14

more equitable and sustainable environment can help to invigorate declining social capital and

stimulate the economies of diminished neighborhoods.

It should be noted that both communities essentially have the same safety

countermeasures in place, including pedestrian signage, refuge islands, school demarcations,

advance stop/yield markings, warning signs, and special emphasis crosswalk striping. But the

overreaching issues lie in the statistics and physical environment, which are night and day when

it comes to the inordinate amount of pedestrian crashes in Pine Hills as compared to Baldwin

Park. Reasoning might suggest that the built environment does indeed play a significant role in

the high number of pedestrian crashes due to the fact that Pine Hills is afflicted with numerous

incongruities, characterized by unregulated curb cuts, haphazard sidewalk segments, multiple

wide travel lanes, and comparatively high speeds in an area consisting of large numbers of

pedestrians/bicyclists, transit users, schools, residential neighborhoods, and a hodge-podge

commercial development. This contrasts Baldwin Park’s relatively new and exceptional roadway

and sidewalk networks and thriving, mixed-use character. Additionally, a site visit along Pine

Hills Road verified missing and damaged pedestrian signage, crosswalks in need of painting, and

a “pedestrian crossing” pole sign in a refuge island that appears to have been run over by a car

and is skewed at a 45-degree angle.

Table 4: Best Foot Forward Crosswalk Yield Study, Countermeasures.

*Both communities would benefit from Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacons (RRFBs) to enhance safety by providing

drivers real-time warning that a pedestrian(s) is in or entering a crosswalk (USDOT, FHWA, n.d.).

Pedestrian Safety 15

Nevertheless, a counterargument could be made that pedestrian behavior may also play a

significant role in the statistics. For example, Orange County conducted a pedestrian and bicycle

study in 2017 with the goal to “Identify opportunities for implementing safety improvements for

people walking, bicycling, driving or taking the bus” (Orange County, FL, n.d.) along the Pine

Hills Road corridor. As part of the study, a survey was conducted with the following results: 38

percent always cross at intersection or crosswalk; 12 percent always do not cross at intersection

or crosswalk; 50 percent often do not cross at intersections or crosswalk; and 42 percent cross all

lanes at gaps/breaks in traffic. This information is intriguing and of concern, however, the results

of this study demonstrate that they are not the primary contributing factor in the frequency of

crashes, especially when compared to the catalyzing information provided throughout this report.

Future Directions

Present-day transportation planners, engineers and policy makers have many tools and

models to work from in order to modernize and improve our built environments and address the

needs of declining roadways due to the significant role our transportation infrastructure plays in

the frequency of pedestrian crashes. For the community of Pine Hills to rebound, actionable steps

need to be taken to improve mobility, connectivity, economic development, social capital and to

provide safe accessibility throughout the corridor.

One of the most widely accepted methods being applied today is the use of Complete

Streets guidelines that promote well-designed, all-inclusive infrastructure that enhances user

access and overall well-being by utilizing design methods that require streets and neighborhoods

to be planned, designed, operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient, comfortable and

energy efficient travel and access: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders, emergency

services, freight handlers and future modes that will evolve along with Smart Cities technology.

Pedestrian Safety 16

This will allow our built environment to be more appealing and beneficial for existing and future

end users.

Efforts to enhance mobility needs are being addressed by Bike/Walk Central Florida

(BWCF), a 501(c)(3) organization, through public outreach and support in Orange, Osceola and

Seminole Counties by educating the public and professionals at community and public

engagements in order to promote walkable and bikeable communities while raising public

awareness. The organization advocates for safe, active transportation and recreation by educating

walkers, cyclists, motorists and transit riders about Florida’s road laws, their rights,

responsibilities and civil behaviors; supporting transportation corridor planning and design using

Complete Streets principles; and promoting a built environment that supports physical,

environmental and economic health, safe transportation choices, and encourages interaction

among citizens of all ages, incomes and abilities. BWCF was “born out of a belief that few

people get into their cars, ride their bikes, or walk across the street with the intention of colliding

(BWCF, n.d.).”

Subsequently, the Best Foot Forward (BFF) for pedestrian safety program was conceived

by and is administered through BWCF. BFF uses a Triple-E approach of education, engineering

and enforcement to improve driver yield rates at crosswalks as governed by Florida Law (Section

316.123 of Florida Statutes). BFF also conducts crosswalk observation and data collection to

promote initiatives intended to reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries, including the communities

of Pine Hills and Baldwin Park, by getting drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks while

motivating pedestrians to be more careful crossing the street. Success is measured by the

percentage of drivers yielding to pedestrians in marked crosswalks with the goal of reducing

Pedestrian Safety 17

pedestrian deaths and injuries (BFF, n.d.).

Source: Best Foot Forward, 2019.

In addition to local, regional, state and national programs, and in order to provide

contemporary means of addressing the safety and modernization of our transportation networks,

Smart Cities innovations need to be considered by utilizing available technologies to improve

lives and build better environments for the future. However, a focus on community is needed

before any new technology is applied. Making pedestrians a priority is one of the many steps in

preparing for the future of transportation. The help of new emerging technology is pointing us in

a more walkable manner. “Cities are connecting themselves with technology varying from AI-

enabled streetlights to traffic sensors which may ensure the roads are safe for all who occupy

them” (Wired Labs & Western Digital, 2019).

Moreover, while it may be difficult to visualize the economic ramifications of

transportation on a community, results demonstrate that improvements to the built environment

can make streets safer for all walkers as well as promote economic development by means of

improved livability and sustainability. This could be the case for the future for Pine Hills after

significant improvements are made, pedestrian crash rates decline, and the Pine Hills Road

corridor begins to see economic revival.

Pedestrian Safety 18

References

Best Foot Forward. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iyield4peds.org/

Bike/Walk Central Florida. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://bikewalkcentralflorida.org/

Chakravarthy, B., Anderson, C.L., Ludlow, J., Lotfipour, S., & Vaca, F.E. (2010) The

Relationship of Pedestrian Injuries to Socioeconomic Characteristics in a Large Southern

California County. Traffic Injury Prevention, 11(5), 508-513.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2010.497546

Chimba, D., Musinguzi, A., & Kidando, E. (2018). Associating pedestrian crashes with

demographic and socioeconomic factors. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(1), 11-16.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.01.006

Ciddiqui, C., Abdel-Aty, M., & Choi, K. (2012). Implications of Pedestrian Safety Planning

Factors in Areas with Minority and Low-Income Populations. International Journal of

Sustainable Transportation, 8(5), 360-381.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.702853

City of Orlando. (n.d.). Baldwin Park/NTC Main Base: A Brief History. City of Orlando.

Retrieved from: http://www.cityoforlando.net/city-planning/wp-

content/uploads/sites/27/2014/05/BaldwinPark-History.pdf

Dangerous By Design 2019. (2019). Retrieved from https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-

by-design/

Dai, D. (2012). Identifying clusters and risk factors of injuries in pedestrian–vehicle crashes in a

GIS environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 206-214.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.005

Pedestrian Safety 19

Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: Florida Crash Dashboard. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.flhsmv.gov/traffic-crash-reports/crash-dashboard/

Garder, P.E. (2004). The impact of speed and other variables on pedestrian safety in Maine.

Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(4), 533-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-

4575(03)00059-9

Gibbs, K., Slater, S.J., Nicholson, N., Barker, D.C., & Chaloupka, F.J. (2012). Income

Disparities in Street Features that Encourage Walking. Bridging the Gap Program, Health

Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University. Of Illinois at

Chicago. Retrieved from

http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/_asset/02fpi3/btg_street_walkability_FINAL_03-

09-12.pdf

Gundluru, Bhaskara. (n.d.). Smart Solutions for Pedestrians in Smart Cities. Retrieved from

https://www.cdmsmith.com/en-ME/Client-Solutions/Insights/Smart-Solutions-for-

Pedestrians-in-Smart-Cities

How Cities Are Using Smart Technology to Help Keep Pedestrians Safe. (2019, March 11).

Retrieved from https://datamakespossible.westerndigital.com/smart-cities-technology-

pedestrian-safety/

Pine Hills Neighborhood Improvement District. (2015). 2015-2045 Pine Hills Neighborhood

Improvement Plan. Orange County Government. Retrieved from:

https://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/Library/Neighbors-

Housing/docs/PH_Neighborhood%20Improvement%20Plan.pdf

Pedestrian Safety 20

Redding, R.A., Ferguson, S.A., & McCartt, A.T. (2003). A Review of Evidence-Based Traffic

Engineering Measures Designed to Reduce Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Crashes. American

Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1456-1463. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1456

Siddiqui, N., Chu, X., & Guttenplan, M. (2006). Crossing Locations, Light Conditions, and

Pedestrian Injury Severity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

Transportation Research Board, 1982. 141-149.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106198200118

The 2019 Florida Statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-

0399/0316/Sections/0316.123.html

Traffic Safety Facts. (2019). Retrieved from

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681

Traffic and Transportation, Orange, Co., FL. (n.d.). Pine Hills Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety

Study. Retrieved from https://www.orangecountyfl.net/

U. S. Census Bureau. (2017). American Factfinder. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from:

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). Food Access Research Atlas. United States Department

of Agriculture: Economic Research Service. Retrieved from:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Rectangular Rapid

Flash Beacons (RRFB). Retrieved from

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/unsignalized/tech_sum/fhwasa0900

9/

Pedestrian Safety 21

Zaccaro, H., Chafetz, J., & Schonfeld, S. (2019). 2019 Dangerous by Design. Smart Growth

America and National Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved from

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/app/uploads/2019/01/Dangerous-by-Design-2019-

FINAL.pdf

Zhou, H., & Hsu, P. (2009). Effects of Roadway Lighting Level on the Pedestrian Safety. Ninth

International Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals (ICCTP).

https://doi.org/10.1061/41064(358)4

Pedestrian Safety 22

Appendix A

Pedestrian Safety 23

Appendix B

Pedestrian Safety 24

Appendix C

Pedestrian Safety 25

Appendix D