Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study MPO Board Overview December 5, 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

Data Driven Project Approach Multi-Step Process: Select 10 School Areas for Review 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

Group by School Type Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Schools Magnet (only) Schools Charter Schools

Define School Evaluation Areas 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 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.

Screen 1 Data – Crashes + Students Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Five Year Crash History (2012—2016) 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 bicyclist was of school age. Identify Number of Students that Live within the School Areas (2- mile, 1-mile, and 0.5-mile) and Attend the Area School: Calculate % of enrolled students who reside within school areas (Area Students ÷ Enrolled Students)

Screen 2 Data – Contributing Factors Arterial Road and Collector Road Intersections Number of Intersection (Signalized + Non-Signalized) Percent Free/Reduced Lunch % of Area Students Qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch Within MPO Defined Community of Concern Communities with Identified Obstacles to Transportation Getting to School Survey Results Indicating Students Currently Walking/Biking to School

Screen 2 Data – Contributing Factors Non-Funded Transportation Students Number of Potential “New” Walking/Biking Students Traditional School Does the School Have a Defined Attendance Boundary? Recent Safety Study or RSA? Has There Been Any Recent Studies in the Area?

Evaluating School Areas – Screen 1 Use Screen 1 Data Inputs to Develop a School Area “Short- List” School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Number of Area Students Rate of School Related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes per Area Student

Evaluating School Areas – Screen 1 Process Rank School Areas based on Measures Apply Weighting to Data Rankings Sum Weighted Data Rankings into Distance Scores Apply Distance Weighting Sum to Create a Composite Ranking Data Weighting: 50% - School Related Crashes 20% - Total Crashes 20% - Area Students 10% - Rate of School Related Crashes to Area Students Area Weighting: 31% - 2-Mile Area 33% - 1-Mile Area 36% - 0.5-Mile Area

Screen 1 Short-List Schools Select Top School Areas from each School Type for the Short-List All Schools All + Short List Schools

Evaluating School Areas – Screen 2 Short-List School Areas Evaluated based on Screen 2 Data Inputs: Arterial and Collector Road Intersections Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students Within MPO Community of Concern Getting to School Survey Results Non-Funded Transportation Students Traditional School Designation

Evaluating School Areas – Screen 2 Process Rank Short-List Areas based on Screen 2 Measures Apply Weighting to Data Rankings Sum Weighted Data Rankings into Distance Scores Apply Distance Weighting Sum to Create a Composite Ranking Data Weighting: 30% - Arterial Intersections 5% - Getting to School Survey 25% - Collector Intersections 15% - Non-Funded Transportation Students 15% - Free/Reduced Lunch 5% - Community of Concern 10% - Traditional School Area Weighting: 31% - 2-Mile Area 33% - 1-Mile Area 36% - 0.5-Mile Area

School Area Prioritization Combination of Screen 1 and Screen 2 Evaluation Results used to Prioritize School Areas for Multimodal Reviews Screen 1 Weighted Rankings Screen 2 Weighted Rankings Prioritized School Area Rankings

School Area Prioritization Sulphur Springs Community School Coleman Middle Hillsborough High Pierce Middle Plant High Brandon High Ferrell Middle Magnet King High Young Middle Magnet Gaither High Leto High B. T. Washington Elementary Muller Elementary Magnet Memorial Middle Chamberlain High Mort Elementary Middleton High Wilson Middle Van Buren Middle Riverview High Recent RSAs or Safety Reviews? Are Schools Close Enough to Group Areas?

Selected School Areas for Review Chamberlain High School Coleman Middle School Ferrell Middle Magnet + Middleton High + Young Middle Magnet School King High School Leto High School Muller Elementary Magnet School Pierce Middle School Plant High School Sulphur Springs K-8 Community School Van Buren Middle School (being combined with Calhoun Elem. Fall 2018)

Next Steps Conducting Multimodal Safety Reviews of the 10 Selected School Areas Agency Coordination/Follow-Up, Feasibility Reviews, 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