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

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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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%)

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

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

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

22. 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?

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

24. 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

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

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

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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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