1. Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study
MPO Board Overview
December 5, 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. 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

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

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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

10. 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% Mile Area

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

12. 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

13. 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% Mile Area

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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)

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

18. 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