PHOTOVOICE A Project to Improve Pedestrian Safety in Dallas. Final Project Report. Injury Prevention Center of Greater Dallas

Transcription

1 PHOTOVOICE 2016 A Project to Improve Pedestrian Safety in Dallas Final Project Report Injury Prevention Center of Greater Dallas

2 Acknowledgements The Injury Prevention Center of Greater Dallas (IPC) would like to express our deepest appreciation to the following individuals for their assistance with the implementation and evaluation of the 2016 PHOTOVOICE project. Their support and contribution are crucial to the success of the project, and we sincerely appreciate their efforts. Areeba Ali, Parkland Health & Hospital System Vidya Ayyr, Parkland Health & Hospital System Jennifer Crenshaw, Jennifer Crenshaw Photography Nelly Cuenca, Parkland Health & Hospital System Courtney Edwards, Rees-Jones Trauma Center at Parkland Ofelia Faz-Garza, El Centro Community College Councilmember Jennifer S. Gates, District 13 Nancy George, Southern Methodist University Rooha Hagharmehdiabadi, Eagle Scholars Program Gabrielle Hawthorne, Parkland Health & Hospital System Elisa Hernandez, Parkland Health & Hospital System Hillsman Jackson, Southern Methodist University Judge Clay Jenkins, Dallas County Angela Morris, Parkland Health & Hospital System Janet Morrison, Eagle Scholars Program Mary Orsak, Councilmember Gates staff Marcy Paul, Ph.D., University of North Texas Health Science Center Sophie Phillips, TexProtects Jared Porter, Parkland Health & Hospital System Peri Shushi, Parkland Health & Hospital System Martha Stowe, Vickery Meadow Youth Development Foundation Florencia Velasco, Concilio Kim White, El Centro Community College Jeremy Williams, North Central Texas Council of Governments Carolyn Williamson, Councilmember Gates staff Katherine Yoder, Parkland Health & Hospital System Special gratitude also goes to the IPC staff (David Beveridge, Isabel Colunga, Mary McCoy, Jimma Njoku, Jennifer Wright and Merissa Yellman) for their continued support of this project. Page 1

3 Summary Walking is the oldest form of human transportation and provides many health benefits; however, pedestrians represent a growing percentage of total traffic fatalities and injuries. In 2005, pedestrian fatalities comprised 11 percent of all traffic deaths nationwide, while it increased to 15 percent in The number of pedestrian fatalities in the United States increased 19 percent from 2009 to 2014, a period in which total traffic deaths decreased by about 4 percent. In fact, pedestrians now account for the largest proportion of traffic fatalities recorded in the past 25 years. Since 1997, there have been 1022 pedestrian deaths in Dallas County. The average annual pedestrian death rate in Dallas County was 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population per year compared to the U.S. annualized rate of 1.9 deaths per 100,000 population. Policies and environmental land use strategies that make it easy and safe for residents to walk to venues can be effective in improving health and safety. Cross-disciplinary collaboration to build community capacity to modify environments that foster safer, more active, and healthier communities can lead to improvements in health. Since 2011, the Injury Prevention Center of Greater Dallas, housed at Parkland Hospital, has used PHOTOVOICE methodology to conduct a pedestrian safety project. The PHOTOVOICE methodology was developed by Caroline C. Wang at the University of Michigan and Mary Ann Burris with the Ford Foundation in 1992 as a way to empower marginalized individuals to be potential catalysts of change and to influence policies and programs affecting their community. PHOTOVOICE can enable individuals to 1) record and vivify their community s strengths and concerns; 2) promote critical dialogue and knowledge about community issues through group discussion of photographs; and 3) reach policy makers. Background Walking is the oldest form of human transportation and provides many health benefits, including reducing the risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. 1 However, many communities struggle with motor vehicles clogging roads, motor vehicle emissions polluting the environment, and more children engaging in less physical activity and an epidemic of obesity. 2 Unfortunately, pedestrians represent a growing percentage of total traffic fatalities and injuries. For example, pedestrian fatalities comprised 11 percent of all traffic deaths nationwide in 2005, but 15 percent in In 2014, there were 4,884 pedestrians killed in traffic crashes in the United States a 2 percent increase from 4,779 pedestrian fatalities in On average, a pedestrian was killed every 2 hours and injured every 8 minutes in traffic crashes in The number of pedestrian fatalities in the United States increased 19 percent from 2009 to 2014, a period in which total traffic deaths decreased by about 4 percent. In fact, pedestrians now account for the largest proportion of traffic fatalities recorded in the past 25 years. 4 Not only are pedestrians more likely to be involved in a crash due to their frequency of travel in dense urban areas with more vehicular traffic, 5 but they also have an increased likelihood of severe injury because of the lack of protection offered to them in a crash. 6 Pedestrians are 1.5 Page 2

4 times more likely than passenger vehicle occupants to be killed in a car crash on each trip.7 The vulnerability of pedestrians illustrates the importance of implementing evidence-based strategies to prevent these type of lethal and debilitating crashes from occurring. Dallas Since 1997, there have been 1022 pedestrian deaths in Dallas County.8 Pedestrians accounted for one out of 12 of all unintentional deaths, and 23 percent of all motor vehicle related deaths in Dallas County. The number of pedestrian deaths averaged approximately 57 per year. The average annual rate in Dallas County was 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population per year compared to the U.S. annualized rate of 1.9 deaths per 100,000 population.8 The largest number of the deaths occurred between the ages The site for pedestrian deaths varied by age groups. For children < 15 years old, the majority of deaths occurred on surface streets. For adolescent/adult ages 15-59, the greater number of deaths occurred on expressways followed by surface streets.8 The Texas Crash Record Information System (CRIS) indicates that 550 pedestrians were killed in Texas in At 3.20 deaths per 100,000 population in 2014, the city of Dallas has the ninth highest pedestrian fatality rate among all U.S. cities with populations larger than 500, This rate is also much higher than the national average of 1.53 pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population.10 Dallas County Medical Examiner data confirms that pedestrian deaths are an increasing problem. Pedestrian deaths in Dallas County increased by 37.3% from 2013 to 2015 (59 deaths in 2013 to 81 deaths in 2015).8 Methods Since 2011, the Injury Prevention Center of Greater Dallas, housed at Parkland Hospital, has used PHOTOVOICE methodology to conduct a pedestrian safety project. The PHOTOVOICE methodology was developed by Caroline C. Wang at the University of Michigan and Mary Ann Burris with the Ford Foundation in 1992 as a way to empower marginalized individuals to be potential catalysts of change and to influence policies and programs affecting their community.11 PHOTOVOICE can enable individuals to 1) record and vivify their community s strengths and concerns; 2) promote critical Page 3

5 dialogue and knowledge about community issues through group discussion of photographs; and 3) reach policy makers. 12 In 2016, with funding from the Texas Department of State Health Services, the IPC analyzed data from the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences to identify pedestrian safety issues in Dallas. The use of valid injury data is essential in understanding the extent of injuries and violence. Data is also essential in making informed decisions regarding prevention priorities. The IPC also utilized data from the North Central Texas Council of Governments to identify areas of concern ( hot spots ) for pedestrian injuries and deaths. Maps were created identifying incident locations. The IPC recruited two local academic programs to participate in a pedestrian safety project utilizing the PHOTOVOICE methodology. Each project is described in detail below. El Centro Community Health Worker Noncredit Program Students participating in the El Centro Community Health Worker Noncredit Program were recruited to participate in a 4- week PHOTOVOICE project. El Centro is a member of the Dallas County Community Colleges. Community health workers (CHW) are frontline public health workers who help individuals and communities adopt healthy behaviors, by conducting activities to promote good health practices. Seven students participated in the project, which was conducted once a week from May 23 June 20, An outline of the PHOTOVOICE curriculum for El Centro is provided in Table 1. Page 4

6 Table 1. Session # Topic Learning Objectives 1 Introduction to Pedestrian Safety and Photography Training 1) Learn the basics of pedestrian safety. 2) Learn the basics of operating a camera, including techniques, consent, and ethics. Learn how to 2 Introduction to Evidence-Based Strategies in Pedestrian Safety and Advocacy Lesson 3 Photo Selection, Photo Discussion, and Write Captions, Social Media training 4 Final Photo Presentation take interesting pictures that tell a story. 1) Learn how to identify pedestrian safety problems in the environment. 2) Learn about evidence-based and promising strategies which can reduce deaths and injuries due to pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. 3) Learn about how to be advocates for change in the community. 1) Review, discuss, and select photos. 2) Learn how to write a strong caption. 3) Write captions for the selected photographs. 1) Showcase and present photos to city leaders and community members. Participants in the El Centro project were provided with Canon - PowerShot ELPH Megapixel Digital Cameras during Session 1 and were asked to take photographs of issues affecting pedestrian safety in the hot spot areas. The students photographs were reviewed during Session 2. The students took additional photographs following Session 2. Each student selected two photographs and prepared captions for the final presentation, which was held on June 20. Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins and staff from the North Central Texas Council of Governments attended the final presentation. Page 5

7 Vickery Meadow Eagle Scholars Program were allowed to use the cameras during Session 2 and on the photo walk. During the photo walk, students were asked to take photographs of pedestrian safety issues or countermeasures that improve pedestrian safety. Following the final session, students were allowed to keep their cameras. Each student in the Eagle Scholars PHOTOVOICE project selected one photograph to present at the final session. The final presentation was held on July 15 and was attended by staff from Dallas Councilmember Jennifer S. Gates office and other Vickery Meadow community leaders. Since 2011, the IPC has collaborated with Vickery Meadow Youth Development Foundation and the Eagle Scholars Program, to conduct a PHOTOVOICE project. Seventh and eighth grade students with the Eagle Scholars Program were recruited to participate in the 2016 PHOTOVOICE project. The 5-week Vickery Meadow PHOTOVOICE project was conducted twice a week from June 23 July 15, 2016, and included a chaperoned photo walk with Dallas area photographers. Eagle Scholars students were also provided with Canon - PowerShot ELPH Megapixel Digital cameras. However, they Vickery Meadow is the densest community in Dallas and contains more than 90 multi family properties, 112 businesses, five public schools, and only two single family homes in a 3.5 square mile area. Many of its residents are immigrants and refugees from Mexico, Central America, South and Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Over 60 languages are spoken by Vickery Meadow s residents. The neighborhood, originally inhabited by young, well-to do singles, changed demographics throughout the 1990s. An amendment to the Fair Housing Act and market changes caused immigrant and refugee families to move into the apartment complexes and young singles to move out. The infrastructure that existed was largely not designed for families. Page 6

8 An outline of the PHOTOVOICE curriculum for Vickery Meadow is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Session # Topic Learning Objectives 1 Intro to PHOTOVOICE and Pedestrian Safety Presentation 1) Learn the basics of pedestrian safety. 2 Photography Training 1) Learn the basics of operating a camera, including techniques, consent, and ethics. Learn how to take interesting pictures that tell a story. 3 Photo Walk (Community Field Trip) 4 Photo Selection and Discussion/Caption writing 1) Divide students into two teams. 2) Chaperoned photo walk to take photos of pedestrian safety issues. 1) Review, discuss, and select photos. 2) Learn how to write a strong caption. 3) Write captions for the selected photographs. 5 Social Media Lesson/ Practice Presentations 1) Learn about how to use social media. 2) Students practice presenting their photographs with their captions. 6 Advocate for Change 1) Learn about how to be advocates for change in the community. 7 Final Photo Presentation 1) Showcase and present photos to city leaders and community members. Page 7

9 Results Photos from the El Centro and Vickery Meadows were evaluated based on depiction of a countermeasure and or a common safety theme. There were 28 photos between the two sites. The students in the Community Health Worker program at El Centro took photos around their respective neighborhoods around Dallas depicting safety issues. The Vickery Meadow students were 6-8 th graders at William Tasby Middle School and took pictures around their school and the surrounding neighborhood. The photos were evaluated based on depiction of a common safety theme and a pedestrian safety countermeasure. The IPC utilized the Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration ( to determine appropriate countermeasures depicted in the photos. There are 67 countermeasures described in the Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System; the countermeasures are divided into nine categories (Table 3). Definitions for the countermeasures are available at the website listed above. Table 3. Category Along the Roadway At Crossing Locations Transit Roadway Design Intersection Design Traffic Calming Countermeasures Sidewalks, Walkways and Paved Shoulders Street Furniture/Walking Environment Curb Ramps Marked Crosswalks and Enhancements Curb Extensions Crossing Islands Raised Pedestrian Crossings Lighting and Illumination Parking Restrictions (at Crossing Locations) Pedestrian Overpasses/Underpasses Automated Pedestrian Detection Leading Pedestrian Interval Advance Yield/Stop Lines Transit Stop Improvements Access to Transit Bus Bulb Outs Bicycle Lanes Lane Narrowing Lane Reduction (Road Diet) Driveway Improvements Raised Medians One-way/Two-way Street Conversions Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design Roundabouts Modified T-Intersections Intersection Median Barriers Curb Radius Reduction Modify Skewed Intersections Pedestrian Accommodations at Complex Interchanges Temporary Installations for Traffic Calming Page 8

10 Traffic Management Signals and Signs Other Measures Chokers Chicanes Mini-Circles Speed Humps Speed Tables Gateways Landscaping Specific Paving Treatments Serpentine Design Diverters Full Street Closure Partial Street Closure Left Turn Prohibitions Traffic Signals Pedestrian Signals Pedestrian Signal Timing Traffic Signal Enhancements Right-Turn-on-Red Restrictions Advanced Stop Lines at Traffic Signals Left Turn Phasing Push Buttons & Signal Timing Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Puffin Crossing Signing School Zone Improvement Neighborhood Identity Speed-Monitoring On-Street Parking Enhancements Pedestrian/Driver Education Police Enforcement Automated Enforcement Systems Pedestrian Streets/Malls Work Zones â Pedestrian Detours Pedestrian Safety at Railroad Crossings Shared Streets Streetcar Planning and Design The Social Ecological Model was also used a reference tool to demonstrate the roles that are responsible for addressing the theme of the photo. The Social Ecological Model is a theory-based framework for understanding the multifaceted and interactive effects of personal and environmental factors that determine behaviors, and for identifying behavioral and organizational leverage points and intermediaries for health promotion within organizations. 13,14 The Social Ecological Model that the IPC utilized is composed of 4 overlapping levels that illustrate how factors at one level can influence pedestrian safety factors at another level. The Social Ecological Model graphically illustrates that it is necessary to implement prevention strategies across multiple levels at the same time. This approach is more likely to sustain prevention efforts Page 9

11 over time than any single intervention. 14 Table 4 provides a summary of factors that influence pedestrian safety at each level of the model. Table 4. Level Policy/Built Environment Community Interpersonal Individual Factors Local, state, and national laws and policies, including policies regarding the allocation of resources for the built environment and pedestrian safety Organizations or social institutions with rules and regulations that affect the built environment Family, friends, peers, co-workers, culture Knowledge, attitudes, behavior, education A theme was assigned to each photo. For photos that depicted a potential pedestrian safety hazard, a recommended countermeasure was provided. No recommendations were provided if a photo depicted an existing appropriate countermeasure. Overall, there were six themes identified between the two project sites that depicted potentially hazardous pedestrian conditions/activities (Table 5.). Table 5. Most Common Pedestrian Safety Themes Problems with sidewalk (no sidewalk, no buffer zone, cracked, misplaced) Problems with marked crosswalk (no crosswalk, faded) Overall Number/% El Centro Vickery Meadow 13/28 (46%) 7/14 (50%) 6/14 (43%) 5/28 (18%) 4/14 (29%) 1/14 (7%) Poor lighting 2/28 (7%) 2/14 (14%) 0/14 (0%) Problems with pedestrian signals (broken, long wait times) Uncontrolled crossing at midblock (jaywalking) Other sidewalk problems (trash, tall grass) 1/28 (4%) 1/14 (7%) 0/14 (0%) 2/28 (7%) 0/14 (0%) 2/14 (14%) 4/28 (14%) 0/14 (0%) 4/14 (29%) Page 10

12 The students photos also reflected positive pedestrian safety countermeasures. Among El Centro students, 3/14 (21%) photographed positive countermeasures (raised pedestrian islands, roundabouts), while Vickery Meadow students photographed two positive countermeasures (cutout around fire hydrant, correct signage at crosswalk). Each photo was also assigned to a level of the Social Ecological Model. After review and discussion, the evaluation team concluded that all of the photos could represent more than one level of the Social Ecological Model. Overall, 20/28 (71%) were assigned to the Built Environment category, 20/28 (71%) were assigned to the Community category, 4/28 (14%) were assigned to the Interpersonal category, and 4/28 (14%) were assigned to the Individual level (Table 6.). All students photos are available in Appendix 1 with their assigned Social Ecological Levels. Table 6. Social Ecological Level Overall Number/% El Centro Vickery Meadow Built Environment 22/28 (79%) 14/14 (100%) 8/14 (57%) Community 20/28 (71%) 10/14 (71%) 10/14 (71%) Interpersonal 4/28 (14%) 2/14 (14%) 2/14 (14%) Individual 4/28 (14%) 2/14 (14%) 2/14 (14%) For the Vickery Meadow project, many of the pedestrian safety hazards identified in 2016 have been noted in previous years of the PHOTOVOICE project. For example, the photo at right is similar to a photo taken in 2015 (below left). A similar photo was also noted in the Vickery Meadow Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment (PRSA), which was conducted by the Federal Highway Administration on February 24-26, 2015 (below right). Page 11

13 Pedestrian Safety Improvement Recommendations: 1. Implement Recommendations from Vickery Meadow Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment On February 24-26, 2015, the Federal Highway Administration, with assistance from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), conducted a Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment (PRSA) in the Vickery Meadow area. The study area primarily focused on the Park Lane corridor from the Park Lane Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) rail station and Greenville Avenue on the west to the 5-Points intersection (Park Lane/ Ridgecrest Road/Fair Oaks Avenue) to the east. The PRSA included several recommendations to improve pedestrian safety in the area, such as 1) ensuring that pedestrian signals and push buttons are working and signal timings ensure adequate crossing times; 2) Upgrading, repairing and widening sidewalks; 3) Evaluating locations for midblock crosswalks with raised crossing islands; 4) designing roadways using Complete Streets principles; and 5) removing the stone steps leading out of the DART station parking lot at the corner of Greenville Avenue and Park Lane (Figures 4,5 and 6), and adding fencing along the edge of the parking lot along Greenville Avenue, and adding pedestrian wayward signing and markings through the parking lot so pedestrians will be guided and encouraged to cross adjacent streets at the proper crossing points Continue efforts to complete and expand Complete Streets projects in Dallas. The Dallas City Council approved a Resolution adopting the Complete Streets Design Manual in January The City of Dallas Complete Streets Resolution takes the strong position that streets will be designed and built to be safe and comfortable for all modes of travel, regardless of one s age or ability. The policy is also sensitive to the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, and bus and train riders. Adoption of the Complete Streets policy establishes a consistent framework to influence all development related activities that impact how streets are designed and operated. Incomplete streets those designed with only cars in mind limit transportation choices by making walking, bicycling, and taking public transportation inconvenient, unattractive, and, too often, dangerous. Changing policy so that our transportation system routinely includes the needs of people on foot, public transportation, and bicycles means that walking, riding bikes, and riding buses and trains will be safer and easier. People of all ages and abilities will have more options when traveling to work, to school, to the grocery store, and to visit family. 17 Making these travel choices more convenient, attractive, and safe means people do not need to rely solely on automobiles. They can replace congestion-clogged trips in their cars with swift bus rides or heart-healthy bicycle trips. Complete Streets improves the efficiency and capacity of existing roads too, by moving people in the same amount of space just think of all the people who can fit on a bus or streetcar versus the same amount of people each driving their own car. Getting more productivity out of the existing road and public transportation systems is vital to reducing congestion. 17 Page 12

14 Holly Hill Street (between Pineland and Phoenix), which is one of the major streets in the Vickery Meadow area, is listed as Complete Streets project that is currently under design Consider Adopting a Vision Zero Policy Vision Zero is a proven, data-driven approach to reducing transportation-related injuries and saving lives. Originated in Sweden in 1997, the vision of Vision Zero is that the only acceptable number of traffic deaths and serious injuries is zero. 19 Several cities in the U.S. have adopted Vision Zero policies, including Austin 20 and San Antonio. 21 Principles of Vision Zero Traffic deaths and injuries are a preventable, public health issue. Any death is too many. People will make mistakes; the transportation system should be designed so those mistakes aren t fatal. Safety is the primary consideration in transportation decision-making. Traffic safety solutions must be addressed holistically, through: o Engineering and street design, o Education and culture change, o Enforcement, o Evaluation, and o Policy Conclusions Pedestrian collisions, like other road traffic crashes, are both predictable and preventable. There are proven strategies that can be implemented to make communities more livable and safe. A livable community is one that provides safe and convenient transportation choices to all citizens, whether it is by walking, bicycling, transit, or driving. 22 Pedestrian safety improvements should depend on an integrated approach that involves the 4 E s: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. 22 Making it easier for Dallas residents and visitors to walk or bike to their destinations can help stimulate the local economy. When a bike lane was added along Valencia Street in San Francisco s Mission district, nearby businesses saw sales increase by 60 percent, which merchants attributed to increased pedestrian and bicycle activity. 23 In Washington, D.C., design improvements along a three-quarter mile corridor in Barracks Row, including new patterned sidewalks and traffic signals, helped attract 40 new businesses and nearly 200 new jobs, along with increases in sales and foot traffic. 24 Even with higher housing prices, walkable neighborhoods are good for working families. People living in communities that give them the option to walk or bike to their destinations often pay less in total housing and transportation costs than those who live in areas with lower housing prices that are more auto-dependent. 24 Streets that are safe for all modes of traffic, including pedestrians, strengthen the community and the city s economy. Page 13

15 References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. Walking: Why Walk? Why Not? Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, National Center for Safe Routes to School. Safe Routes to School Guide - Introduction to Safe Routes to School: the Health, Safety and Transportation Nexus. Retrieved from URL: Guide_Introduction.pdf. Accessed August 30, NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2014 Data Pedestrians. USDOT Publication No. DOT HS Accessed July 27, Governors Highway Safety Association. Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2015 PRELIMINARY DATA. Available at : Accessed July 27, Eck J and Heinonen J. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities: Guide No. 51 (2007). Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Accessed 15 December Elvik R, Erke A, Vaa T, and Sorensen M (Eds.), The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Emerald Group Publishing. 7. Beck LF, Dellinger AM, and O'neil ME. Motor Vehicle Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel, United States: Using Exposure-Based Methods to Quantify Differences. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166(2): Injury Prevention Center of Greater Dallas. Medical Examiner database, Texas Motor Vehicle Crash Statistics Available at: Accessed August 1, National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2016, May). Pedestrians: 2014 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS ). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at: Accessed August 1, Wang CC and Burris MA. Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Educ Behav. June 1997; 24(3): Wang CC. Youth Participation in Photovoice as a Strategy for Community Change. Journal of Community Practice. Volume 14, Issue 1-2, 2006: UNICEF. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Injury Prevention and Control. Division of Violence Prevention. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, City of Dallas. Vickery Meadow Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment (PRSA). February 24-26, City of Dallas Dallas City Newsroom.Com. Retrieved from URL: Page 14

16 17. North Central Texas Council of Governments. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, Dallas City Hall. Retrieved from URL: mplete-streets-initiative-updates_ pdf. Accessed August 30, Vision Zero Initiative. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, City of Austin. Vision Zero. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, City of San Antonio. Retrieved from UR: Accessed August 30, U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, National Complete Streets Coalition (2012, February 22). It s a safe decision: Complete streets in California. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, Smart Growth America. Retrieved from URL: Accessed August 30, Page 15

17 El Centro Social Ecological Model Levels Built Environment & Environmental Conditions Community * Depicts both positive countermeasures and needed improvements. Page 16

18 El Centro Social Ecological Model Levels Built Environment & Environmental Conditions Community Page 17

19 El Centro Social Ecological Model Levels Built Environment & Environmental Conditions Community * * * Depicts both positive countermeasures and needed improvements. Page 18

20 El Centro Social Ecological Model Levels Interpersonal Individual Page 19

21 Vickery Meadow Social Ecological Model Levels Built Environment & Environmental Conditions Community ** ** Depicts a positive countermeasure. Page 20

22 Vickery Meadow Social Ecological Model Levels Built Environment & Environmental Conditions Community * *Depicts both positive countermeasures and needed improvements. Page 21

23 Vickery Meadow Social Ecological Model Level Built Environment & Environmental Conditions Page 22

24 Vickery Meadow Social Ecological Model Level Community Page 23

25 Vickery Meadow Social Ecological Model Levels Interpersonal and Individual This project was funded by the Texas Department of State Health Services, contract # Page 24