Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study Methodology Review July 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. Result Complete Field Reviews at 10 School Areas

Today’s Objective Introduce Proposed Methodology/Approach Provide an Example of the Process Obtain Feedback

Proposed Approach Multi-Step Process: Prioritize Schools Step 1 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 G. Follow-Up Activities F. Complete School Safety Audits E. Detailed School Area Review Identify enhancements for highest priority schools Results

Step 1 – Prioritize Schools Prioritizing School Locations: Define School Types Define School Evaluation Areas Screening 1 – Crashes + Students Screening 2 – Other Contributing Factors

All public schools with a defined attendance boundary A. Define School Types Grouped schools into two categories: Neighborhood Schools “Other” Schools Neighborhood Schools “Other” Schools All public schools with a defined attendance boundary All public schools that do not have a defined attendance boundary, e.g., magnet schools and charter schools Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Grade Level

B. Define School Evaluation Areas F.A.C. 6A-3.001(3) states that a reasonable walking distance for any student who is not otherwise eligible for transportation, is any distance not more than two (2) miles between the home and school or one and one-half (1 ½) miles between the home and assigned bus stop. Process: Identify 2-mile walk zone around each school Overlay with school attendance boundaries Define school evaluation area Also developed 1-mile and 0.5-mile school evaluation areas School Evaluation Area 2-Mile Walk Boundary School School Attendance Boundary

B. Define School Evaluation Areas Example: Attendance and Walk Boundaries 2-Mile School Area 1-Mile School Area 0.5-Mile School Area School Evaluation Area Boundaries Madison Middle School Madison Middle School 2-Mile Walk Distance 1-Mile Walk Distance 0.5-Mile Walk Distance School Location School Attendance Boundary

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Identify and prioritize school areas that have a history of pedestrian and bicycle crashes, specifically school related pedestrian and bicycle crashes, along with a high possibility for a larger number of students to either walk or bike to/from school.

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Identify pedestrian and bicycle crashes that have occurred within the school areas (2-mile, 1-mile, and 0.5-mile): Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes that occurred on a school day, during typical school arrival/dismissal times, and where pedestrian or bicyclists was school age. Identify number of students that live within the school areas (2-mile, 1-mile, and 0.5-mile): Students who attend the school and reside within the school areas Calculate % of total enrolled students who reside within school area

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Example Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes within the 2-Mile School Area: Madison Middle School Area Total Ped & Bike Crashes Total School Related Crashes* 2-Mile Area 58 1 1-Mile Area 13 0.5-Mile Area 9 *School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2012 – 2016) Crashes that occurred on school days (based on school calendar) Crashes that occurred during school arrival/dismissal times (6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM) Crashes where the pedestrian or bicyclists is of school age Elementary School Age (5 – 11) Middle School Age (11 – 14) High School Age (14 – 19) Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes 2012 – 2016

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Example Students within the School Area: Madison Middle School Area Number of Students Total Enrolled Students 644 Students within 2-Mile Area 83 (12.89%) Students within 1-Mile Area 54 (8.39%) Students within 0.5-Mile Area 14 (2.17%)

Example – Screening 1, Middle School Areas Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes per 2-Mile Area School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes per 2-Mile Area

Example – Screening 1, Middle School Areas Students within 2-Mile Area that Attend Area School School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes per Area Student

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Rank school areas based on… Number of School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Number of Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Number of students who reside within the school area Ratio of school related pedestrian and bicycle crashes per school area student Apply a weighting criteria to the rankings to develop a composite rank score and new ranking scheme

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Example of applying weighting to school area rankings: 50% 25% 12.5% School Area School Related Ped and Bike Crash Rank Ttl Ped and Bike Crash Rank Num. Students within Area Rank School Related Crash-to-Student Ratio Rank Un-weighted Composite Ranking Score Un-weighted Screen 1 Ranking Weighted Composite Ranking Score Weighted Screen 1 Ranking School X 2 1 3 7 1.75 School Y 1.50 School Z 11 2.75

C. Screening 1 – Crashes and Students Apply weighted ranking scheme to all three evaluation areas (2-, 1-, and 0.5-Mile) and calculate average rank: Create a school area “shortlist” based on weighted ranking Top 10 School Areas per School Type (Elementary, Middle, and High) Move on to Screening 2 School Area Weighted Screen 1 Ranking 2-Mile Area Weighted Screen 1 Ranking 1-Mile Area Weighted Screen 1 Ranking 0.5-Mile Area Avg. Weighted Rank Weighted Screen 1 Rank School X 2 1 1.67 School Y 1.33 School Z 3 3.00

D. Screening 2 – Other Contributing Factors Screening of “shortlisted” school areas based on other contributing factors, including: Number of major road (arterial + collector) crossings within area Socioeconomic factors i.e., identified “Communities of Concern,” Percentage of area students on free/reduced lunch, etc. Responses from the Getting to School survey (Questions 11 and 12) Number of students who previously received courtesy busing Recently completed or ongoing studies (e.g., Hillsborough High/Memorial Middle and Brandon High) Planned capital improvements Proximity to other shortlisted school areas Select 10 School Areas and Conduct School Safety Audits

D. Screening 2 – Other Contributing Factors Example – Middle School Areas:

Example – Screening 2, Other Factors Arterial + Collector Road Crossings Students Previously Receiving Courtesy Transportation

Example – Screening 2, Other Factors Percent Students on Free/Reduced Lunch Within MPO Identified Community of Concern

Example – Screening 2, Other Factors Getting to School Survey Responses Based on Responses to Questions 11 and 12: 11. On a typical week, how many days does your student use each of these transportation methods to get to school? 12. On a typical week, how many days does your student use each of these transportation methods to get home from school?

Step 2 – Conduct Field Reviews Conduct School Safety Audits within 10 School Areas: Complete Detailed School Area Review Complete Field Reviews Follow-Up Activities

E. Detailed School Area Review For 10 school areas identified for reviews: Document concentrations of students within school areas (heat map) Existing crossing guard locations Detailed review of pedestrian and bicycle crash reports Identification of infrastructure gaps and quality of existing infrastructure Existing bus stop locations School site layout/access points

E. Detailed School Area Review Example – Concentrations of Student Madison Middle School

E. Detailed School Area Review Example – Infrastructure Gaps: Task St at Bay Vista Ave, near Madison Middle School

F. Conduct School Safety Audits Conduct field reviews of the 10 identified school areas

G. Follow-Up Activities Follow-up with appropriate agencies to review recommendations and coordinate responsibilities Present findings and recommendations Compile review findings into a summary report     FINAL REPORT

Next Steps Modifications to the proposed methodology, as needed Evaluate school areas to develop the “shortlist” of school areas Further review and evaluation of “shortlist” areas to identify 10 school areas for review Schedule and conduct reviews Follow-up and finalize recommendations

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