1. Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study
Update
August 2017

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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%

8. 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

9. Screening 1 – Shortlist of School Areas
PROPOSED SHORTLIST

10. 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

11. Screening 2 Measures

12. 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

13. Other considerations Charter Schools
no busing, no not determine location

14. ELEMENT Engineering Group
Thanks and Questions
Contact Information:
MPO Project Manager
Lisa Silva, AICP, PLA
Consultant Contacts
Tindale Oliver
Chris Keller, AICP
ELEMENT Engineering Group
Matthew Weaver, P.E., CPM