Too hazardous for students to walk to school: More buses cost more money

Photo by Richpix via Flickr

Think sprawling development doesn't cost taxpayers money? How about funding extra buses because your kids can't walk to school due to deliberately built hazardous conditions?

I've already noted that buses stop to pick up kids who live YARDS from Pleasant View Elementary School here in Franklin because the single access road is narrow, sidewalk-less, and even shoulder-less in places.

From the San Marcos (Texas) Daily Herald:

‘Hazardous’

A “hazardous traffic condition” designation for the two-mile area around San Marcos High School will soon make bus transportation available to students who live within its boundaries.

District trustees said this week that students who live near the new San Marcos High School might be in danger if they walk to school.

With the district’s designation of the area as hazardous, students living in that vicinity will be provided with bus transportation to and from school.

“We feel that those kids in that radius will be walking to school and we’d rather them not,” said Rene Barajas, assistant superintendent.

The school is located at the intersection of McCarty Lane and Highway 123, neither of which have sidewalks.
School officials said no injuries or problems have been reported to date, but by declaring the area as hazardous, the district will receive some state funding to help provide transportation for those students.

Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.

Comments

[Greg Kowalski]

Well, either we spend money on sidewalks or spend money on buses - perhaps the School District would get less flack if we pushed for more sidewalks for students!

Although I can think of a few FranklinNOW bloggers that would consider that too "environmentally-friendly."

[John Michlig]

Actually, local environmentalists are opposed to some of the connectivity proposals (connective streets/sidewalks, etc.) that are on the table for Pleasant View School; I, on the other hand, am in favor of these proposals as LONG OVERDUE safety measures. I'll trade away a wetland or stand of trees for kids' safety and freedom of mobility any time.

This is why I have to laugh when I'm tagged - lazily - as an "enviro." Many of the measures that need to be taken to create a better sense of place and more walkable, "connected" community will run afoul of the more strident environmentalists. But I feel short-term sacrifices will yield a better overall long-term environment.

[grumps]

There was a long article in the Baltimore Sun yesterday correalting sprawl and bussing costs. Bus miles are up 25% in 15 years and costs up 50%.

[Matthew]

If the school is new, why didn't they consider that they were building in a "hazardous" area?

[John]

Matthew points out the prevailing theme: POOR PLANNING which leads to a laundry list of ills - - some of them EXPENSIVE.

[Terrence Berres]

Maybe that's something to explore, how the principles you advocate could have been applied to the siting and design of Franklin's public schools.

[John]

Terrence, you've pinpointed one of the frustrating paradoxes of modern suburban "planning"; since development is DEVELOPER-driven and most often driven by OPPORTUNITY (for the developer) rather than NEED (for the community), you end up with situations like this over and over again.

In other words, a suburb like Franklin is put together as a patchwork without many logical interrelationships.

For example, Franklin allows developers of subdivisions to lay in non-grid (and SPEED-ENCOURAGING) roads that completely destroy any chance of creating traffic relief and through-points for bikers and pedestrians. So we're left with impassibly busy mile-by-mile streets (Drexel, Rawson, Ryan; soon 51st, etc.).

More progressive suburbs are farsighted enough to make the developer adhere to a Master Plan overlay so eventual relief/connectivity roads can be added in the future.

The solution is far from simple, especially since the die has been cast. Should the city exert Eminent Domain and make things right? That's a pretty frightening thing to contemplate.

However, the development process for Mark Carstensen's Shoppes at Wyndham Village provides ample examples of where city-developer relationships go WRONG; let's hope close examination of that particular exercise in mediocrity helps improve subsequent developments.

[Bryan Maersch]

I find it interesting that the city will be spending $50,000 for sidewalks on both sides of the street between Loomis and Lovers Lane for the Shoppes project, but their are no sidewalks on either side of the street at the High School. Where are the people who always say "we have to do this, its for the kids"?

[John]

It's infinitely easier to make the case for sidewalks when there is a COMMERCIAL consideration than it is when it's "merely" an issue of safety or walkability, I'm afraid.

[Terrence Berres]

Your reply doesn't address at all "how the principles you advocate could have been applied to the siting and design of Franklin's public schools." You've previously commented on Franklin's municipal building projects in these terms. Why not the schools, which are much larger undertakings?

[John]

My turn to put you on the spot, Terrence: Explain your antipathy toward community development that attempts to lower our reliance on vehicles (and related reliance on the Middle East, high fatality rate, etc.), create authentic and useful public spaces, increase commercial viability for businesses, and increase safety for kids and other pedestrians.

And: What's working so well right now? Do you feel our sense of community is actually increasing year by year, decade by decade? Are you happy with your property tax bill?

In the meantime, you can review the 21 "Special Topics" along the right side of this blog for a fairly clear understanding of how traditional neighborhood design and new urbanist principles address everything from school siting to traffic design. My previous reply explained clearly how and why sprawled suburbs like Franklin get into situations like the one in which we find ourselves. The "Special Topics" will give you ample insight into how we can address these problems and do things differently in the future.

Consider it a 30 minute FAQ wherein you can point out what does and doesn't make sense to you.

It just may be that these things don't resonate with you, and we'll agree to disagree.

[John]

Couldn't resist at least a short answer:

"how the principles you advocate could have been applied to the siting and design of Franklin's public schools."

- Adhering to a grid-street concept abates traffic and prevents impassible collector roads.

- Incorporating school buildings INTO neighborhoods makes them safer, integral features (I walked a mile to and from school as a kid in Wausau, and felt safe the whole time because there were "eyes on the street" and sidewalks everywhere. The other day I saw two kids trying to walk two-abreast on 51st street at dusk on their way home from Franklin HS - they were in definite jeopardy).

- At the beginning: Development of a town center that radiates outward in an orderly, connected fashion (this, of course, is the antithesis of sprawls arbitrary development pattern) allows for mixed usage and routes to and from school, commercial buildings, municipal buildings, etc. that are accessible and safe.

- Make pedestrian connectivity as important as water and electricity service - speaks for itself. (No more "I can see it but can't get to it.")

Alternative: Build the school in an open space and hope for the best (which is what Franklin did in the past, when it had an "open slate").

[Terrence Berres]

In your first post you ask "What's working so well right now? Do you feel our sense of community is actually increasing year by year, decade by decade?"

In Franklin, yes, actually, and far beyond what I saw in other communities built on the traditional lines to which you advocate a return. Franklin, with all its local associations and citizen committees and commissions is like something out of Tocqueville by comparison.

In your second post, your short answer isn't an answer at all. You don't apply to the school district the criteria that you would put on the city's or private developers' building projects.

[John]

Still no answer from you. Frankly, I can't pinpoint your angst or draw a bead on what you specifically disagree with.

I think you and I are have reached an impasse; we'll have to agree to disagree (though on WHAT, you haven't made clear).

If "Franklin, with all its local associations and citizen committees and commissions is like something out of Tocqueville by comparison" is your reply, then I'll just say obscurantism is being served next window over.

There was a time - - and let's hope there will be a time again - - when members of a community interacted regularly with one another in safe, available public spaces; no need to "join" or "sign up." This interaction nurtured a sense of community and EMPATHY between young and old, rich and poor; the ability (and opportunity) to disagree in a civil manner; mobility for elderly and children, etc. Today's sharply segregated society is effectively and OBSERVABLY smothering all of the above.

If you truly believe "associations committees and commissions" constitute community interaction, then I say, how sad; evidently community is reserved for those with the time and inclination inclined to join "associations committees and commissions" - - which mainly consist of like-minded people, by the way. It's not enough to just be a fellow Franklinite or fellow human being.

Further, a look at your site tells me that you give of yourself to an ENORMOUS degree as part of a faith community with which you interact regularly. Excellent! But I imagine your intimate involvement in your faith community makes it a bit harder to perceive the secular issues I describe as real problems when you yourself are part of a nurturing group brought together by shared belief.

Would you be willing to consider that possibility?

[Terrence Berres]

In turn, if Tocqueville on associations is, to you, an obscure reference, you might want to consider the possibility you're blogging on the wrong subject.

"There was a time - - and let's hope there will be a time again - - when members of a community interacted regularly with one another in safe, available public spaces; no need to 'join' or 'sign up.' This interaction nurtured a sense of community and EMPATHY between young and old, rich and poor; the ability (and opportunity) to disagree in a civil manner; mobility for elderly and children, etc. Today's sharply segregated society is effectively and OBSERVABLY smothering all of the above."

There was a time when life was as portrayed in the Disney version of "Pollyanna", only better? I've never encountered anyone who remembers or has heard of such a Golden Age, not even among those who lived in Marathon County.

On the other hand, at church there's an attempt to present a current vision using an imaginary portrait of how bad things were before recent decades. That's not the way that was, either.

[John]

Alexis de Tocqueville is not obscure to me (excellent re-framing tactic, by the way; appeal to ego!). Your oblique correlation of community to "associations committees and commissions," however, is.

"Associations committees and commissions." Oh, my.

Vague generalizations and dogma don't float here. Nor will the straw man ("Pollyanna"? "Golden Age"?) be invited to stay for dinner, so to speak.

I await substance. You are dodging the request: Explain your antipathy toward community development that attempts to lower our reliance on vehicles (and related reliance on the Middle East, high fatality rate, etc.), create authentic and useful public spaces, increase commercial viability for businesses, and increase safety for kids and other pedestrians.

Or don't. As I said, we can always agree to disagree. (I think we can find common ground on a mutual love of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER, however.)

[John]

So I can appear smart:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/DETOC/ch2_05.htm

"OF THE USE WHICH THE AMERICANS MAKE OF PUBLIC ASSOCIATIONS IN CIVIL LIFE" by Alexis de Tocqueville

[Terrence Berres]

If you're going to maintain that what you said a couple comments back is a straight factual portrayal of the past, then your policy advocacy is based on fantasy. I don't recall a past that was, for example, less segregated overall than the present.

That's an interesting attempt at framing to equate disagreeing with you to favoring kids getting run over, etc..

One might regard the epitome of MST3K to be the episodes with Joel and TV's Frank, but I'm skeptical that there could be an "authentic" re-creation. See, generally, 'The Death and Life of Great Cable Comedies'.

[John]

I recall a past that was less segregated - - racial segregation aside; I speak of economic stratification - - than the present.

I reiterate this:

There was a time - - and let's hope there will be a time again - - when members of a community interacted regularly with one another in safe, available public spaces; no need to "join" or "sign up." This interaction nurtured a sense of community and EMPATHY between young and old, rich and poor; the ability (and opportunity) to disagree in a civil manner; mobility for elderly and children, etc.

We now plan and build without regard to community, and we are suffering as a result.

Wiser men than I argue persuasively that we now live in the most segregated society that our country has ever seen in terms of economic stratification.

Further, the elderly are now effectively cut off from community life when they lose the ability to drive. And public transit funding is DROPPING rather than rising to meet the need!

Listen to talk radio and read right wing blogs to hear some of the effects of this isolation and stratification (you won't see this sort of fairly friendly back-and-forth there, I assure you). Empathy is an endangered species now that we are secure in our enclaves. "I've got mine; you get yours" is now the motto - - even though much of what we "got" came as the result of previous so-called "socialist" policies.

Show me the suburban block where upper, middle and lower-middle classes live in proximity, observing one another as fellow humans. We've put an end to that - but it's no fantasy; that's where I grew up.

Bring back a Golden Age? Unlikely. But why should that stop us from taking concrete (irony noted) steps toward improving our surroundings and rebuild some sense of community?

I ask again: What's the downside? WHAT, specifically, do you disagree with?

"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." - Edmund Burke