Update August 2017 Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study Improve Safety for Students in Hillsborough County 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 ID: 635543
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study
Update
August 2017Slide2
Hillsborough MPO School Safety Study
Improve Safety for Students in Hillsborough County
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.
Complete Field Reviews at 10 School Areas
Study Purpose
Task
ResultSlide3
Today’s Objective
Overview of Project ApproachInitial Screening Evaluation ResultsInitial “Shortlist” of School AreasSlide4
Project Approach OverviewMulti-Step Process:
G. Follow-Up Activities
F. Complete School Safety Audits
E. Detailed School Area 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
Identify enhancements for highest priority schools
ResultsSlide5
Screening 1 EvaluationCrashes and Students within School Areas:
School
Students Enrolled
Walk-Area Students
Total Pedestrian and Bicycle CrashesSchool Age/Time Crashes
School Crashes per 100 Area
Students
Adams
769
425
164
6
1.4
Barrington
1,352
313
2
0
0.0
Benito
1,049
550
6
3
5.5
Buchanan
713
188
62
1
5.3
Burnett
745
261
28
1
3.8
Burns
1,227
364
33
0
0Coleman9657289245.5
Example: Middle School 2-Mile AreaSlide6
Screening 1 EvaluationRanking the Measures:
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 RankSchool Crash Ratio
Rank
Adams
769
425
164
6
1.4
3
1
1
1
Barrington
1,352
313
2
0
0.0
5
7
6
6
Benito
1,049
5506
35.5
26
32
Buchanan713
188
62
1
5.37342Burnett745261
28
1
3.8
6545Burns1,22736433004466Coleman9657289245.51222
Example: Middle School 2-Mile Area
Value RankingsSlide7
Screening 1 EvaluationApplying a Weight to the Measures:
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
1
1.4
1
Barrington
5
7
6
6
6.0
7
Benito
2
6
3
2
3.3
3
Buchanan
7
342
4.24
Burnett6
54
54.7
5Burns
4
4
6
65.26Coleman12221.8
2
Example: Middle School 2-Mile Area
Weighted Rankings
50%10%20%20%Slide8
Screening 1 EvaluationWeighting the Weighted Rankings by Area Distance:
School
Weighted Rank
Adams
1
Barrington
7
Benito
3
Buchanan
4
Burnett
5
Burns
6
Coleman
2
36%
31%
33%
2-Mile Area
1-Mile Area
0.5-Mile Area
School
Weighted Rank
Adams
2
Barrington
6
Benito
4
Buchanan
3
Burnett
4
Burns
7
Coleman
1
School
Weighted Rank
Adams
2
Barrington
5
Benito
4
Buchanan6Burnett2Burns6Coleman1SchoolComp. ScoreWeighted RankAdams1.692Barrington5.956
Benito
3.69
4
Buchanan
4.39
5
Burnett
3.59
3
Burns
6.33
7
Coleman
1.31
1
Screen 1 Ranking
Move the Top 10 from each school type to the ShortlistSlide9
Screening 1 – Shortlist of School Areas
PROPOSED SHORTLISTSlide10
Screening 2 MeasuresArterial Road Intersections
Collector Road IntersectionsPercent of Students on Free/Reduced LunchWithin MPO Defined Community of ConcernGetting to School Survey Results# of Students Previously Receiving Non-Funded (courtesy) Busing
Recent RSA or other Safety StudyProgramed Work/Capital ProjectSlide11
Screening 2 MeasuresSlide12
Next StepsFurther review and evaluation of “shortlist” areas to identify 10 school areas for review
Technical Review Meeting 9/13Select 10 School AreasSchedule and conduct reviewsFollow-up and finalize recommendationsSlide13
Other considerations
Charter Schoolsno busing, no not determine location Slide14
Thanks and Questions
Contact Information:Lisa Silva, AICP, PLAsilval@plancom.org
Consultant Contacts
Tindale OliverChris Keller, AICP
ckeller@tindaleoliver.comELEMENT Engineering GroupMatthew Weaver, P.E., CPMmweaver@elementeg.com
MPO Project Manager