TABLE 1—
Characteristics of 532 Intersections in New York City Included in This Study as Depicted in Google Street View Imagery: 2007–2011
| Frequency of Characteristic, % |
||||
| Characteristic | Estimated Pedestrian Count,a Geometric Mean, (Geometric SD) | Kappa Score | All (n = 532) | Any Collisionb (n = 291) |
| Crosswalk presence | 0.83 | |||
| None | 1.2 (4.0) | 24 | 12 | |
| Connecting some corners | 2.3 (2.2) | 25 | 22 | |
| Connecting all corners | 3.9 (2.1) | 48 | 65 | |
| N/Ac | 3 | 1 | ||
| Curb cuts | 0.48 | |||
| Present | 2.7 (2.5) | 91 | 96 | |
| Not present | 1.7 (4.0) | 5 | 3 | |
| No sidewalk | 0.2 (8.8) | 4 | 1 | |
| Visible billboards | 0.75 | |||
| None | 2.3 (3.1) | 89 | 84 | |
| ≥ 1 | 3.6 (2.3) | 11 | 16 | |
| Sidewalk condition | 0.40d | |||
| Good | 3.2 (2.5) | 29 | 29 | |
| Fair | 2.7 (2.6) | 46 | 49 | |
| Poor | 2.0 (2.4) | 17 | 16 | |
| Under repair | 7.5 (1.9) | 2 | 2 | |
| Road condition | 0.51d | |||
| Poor | 3.0 (3.1) | 13 | 12 | |
| Fair | 2.5 (3.1) | 62 | 62 | |
| Good | 2.3 (3.2) | 24 | 25 | |
| Under repair | 3.4 (1.6) | 1 | 1 | |
| Pedestrian signal | 1.00 | |||
| Not present | 1.7 (3.4) | 55 | 36 | |
| Present | 3.9 (2.1) | 45 | 64 | |
| Traffic island | 0.52 | |||
| Not present | 2.4 (3.0) | 87 | 80 | |
| Present | 3.0 (3.1) | 13 | 20 | |
| Traffic calming | 0.37 | |||
| Not present | 2.5 (3.0) | 98 | 98 | |
| Present | 2.5 (4.0) | 2 | 2 | |
| Bus stop | 0.70 | |||
| Not present | 2.4 (3.1) | 89 | 84 | |
| Present | 3.0 (2.2) | 11 | 16 | |
Estimated pedestrian count as observed over a 10-minute period either between 10:00 and noon or 1:30 and 3:30 in the afternoon.
Intersections at which 1 or more injuries or fatalities occurred.
N/A indicates intersections where no crosswalk may be expected, such as at a freeway onramp where pedestrian barriers block access to the roadway.
Weighted κ used for ordinal measures.