Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study Update August 2017

Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study Study Purpose Improve Safety for Students in Hillsborough County Task Prioritize school areas for multimodal safety and access reviews aimed at identifying opportunities to enhance the safety and comfort of getting to and from school. This is just a reminder, they’ve seen it before, so you don’t need to go through it all Result Complete Field Reviews at 10 School Areas

Today’s Objective Overview of Project Approach Initial Screening Evaluation Results Initial “Shortlist” of School Areas

Project Approach Overview Multi-Step Process: D. Screening 2 –Contributing Factors C. Screening 1 – Crashes + Students B. Define School Evaluation Areas A. Define School Types Prioritize Schools Step 1 Conduct Field Reviews of Highest Priority Schools Step 2 An overview of the project approach, went through this in detail last month, spend a couple of seconds to remind them of the process, then that we are focusing on the Screen 1 evaluation and some of Screen 2 G. Follow-Up Activities F. Complete School Safety Audits E. Detailed School Area Review Identify enhancements for highest priority schools Results

Screening 1 Evaluation Crashes and Students within School Areas: Example: Middle School 2-Mile Area School Students Enrolled Walk-Area Students Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes School Age/Time Crashes School Crashes per 100 Area Students Adams 769 425 164 6 1.4 Barrington 1,352 313 2 0.0 Benito 1,049 550 3 5.5 Buchanan 713 188 62 1 5.3 Burnett 745 261 28 3.8 Burns 1,227 364 33 Coleman 965 728 92 4

Screening 1 Evaluation Ranking the Measures: Example: Middle School 2-Mile Area Value Rankings School Students Enrolled Walk Area Students Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes School Age/Time Crashes School Crashes per 100 Area Students Walk Area Student Rank Total Pedestrian/Bicycle Crash Rank School Crash Rank School Crash Ratio Rank Adams 769 425 164 6 1.4 3 1 Barrington 1,352 313 2 0.0 5 7 Benito 1,049 550 5.5 Buchanan 713 188 62 5.3 4 Burnett 745 261 28 3.8 Burns 1,227 364 33 Coleman 965 728 92

Total Pedestrian/Bicycle Crash Rank School Crash Ratio Rank Screening 1 Evaluation Applying a Weight to the Measures: Example: Middle School 2-Mile Area Weighted Rankings School Walk Area Student Rank Total Pedestrian/Bicycle Crash Rank School Crash Rank School Crash Ratio Rank Composite Score Weighted Rank Adams 3 1 1.4 Barrington 5 7 6 6.0 Benito 2 3.3 Buchanan 4 4.2 Burnett 4.7 Burns 5.2 Coleman 1.8 20% 20% 50% 10%

Move the Top 10 from each school type to the Shortlist Screening 1 Evaluation Weighting the Weighted Rankings by Area Distance: 2-Mile Area 1-Mile Area 0.5-Mile Area Screen 1 Ranking School Weighted Rank Adams 1 Barrington 7 Benito 3 Buchanan 4 Burnett 5 Burns 6 Coleman 2 School Weighted Rank Adams 2 Barrington 6 Benito 4 Buchanan 3 Burnett Burns 7 Coleman 1 School Weighted Rank Adams 2 Barrington 5 Benito 4 Buchanan 6 Burnett Burns Coleman 1 School Comp. Score Weighted Rank Adams 1.69 2 Barrington 5.95 6 Benito 3.69 4 Buchanan 4.39 5 Burnett 3.59 3 Burns 6.33 7 Coleman 1.31 1 Note: This is the weighting that we are currently using; if they bring it up we are not too far in to change the way we are weighting by distance…if anything we could weight the 0.5 mile area more. 31% 33% 36% Move the Top 10 from each school type to the Shortlist

Screening 1 – Shortlist of School Areas PROPOSED SHORTLIST

Screening 2 Measures Arterial Road Intersections Collector Road Intersections Percent of Students on Free/Reduced Lunch Within MPO Defined Community of Concern Getting to School Survey Results # of Students Previously Receiving Non-Funded (courtesy) Busing Recent RSA or other Safety Study Programed Work/Capital Project

Screening 2 Measures

Next Steps Further review and evaluation of “shortlist” areas to identify 10 school areas for review Technical Review Meeting 9/13 Select 10 School Areas Schedule and conduct reviews Follow-up and finalize recommendations

Other considerations Charter Schools no busing, no not determine location

ELEMENT Engineering Group Thanks and Questions Contact Information: MPO Project Manager Lisa Silva, AICP, PLA silval@plancom.org Consultant Contacts Tindale Oliver Chris Keller, AICP ckeller@tindaleoliver.com ELEMENT Engineering Group Matthew Weaver, P.E., CPM mweaver@elementeg.com