HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 school transportation reportDear Lexington Board Of Selectmen, October 13, 2011
A parent survey was conducted in March 2011 in order to better understand how our
present public school transportation serves the needs of our students. Its goal was to
gather information on how best to improve issues such as traffic congestion and safety at
our nine neighborhood schools. Its findings are the basis of the School Transportation
Report 2011.
The report finds that:
1. More students need to use the school bus.
2. More students should consider walking or biking.
3. Deterrents should be made to drivers in order to decrease the number of vehicles on
school grounds.
4. Bus service should be modified in order to better serve its population.
5. The overwhelming tone of the survey finds that our public school community wants
our neighbor's behavior to change.
Based on the conclusions formulated from the survey results, numerous action items have
been suggested as possible solutions. Safe Routes To School and LPS Transportation has
been working with many Town departments, Committees, and civic groups toward this
end.
The Report presentationon October 17thfocuses on solutions being proposed from all
aspects of our community. Public safety is truly a community rather than a school- centric
issue and any dialogue is a positive step in making our neighborhoods a safe and pleasant
place to live and work.
Respectfully, Safe Routes has two questions for the School Committee to consider.
1. Safe Routes would like to forma small focus group to oversee action items based on
suggestions listed in this Report. We would like to extend an invitation to LPS
Transportation, Sidewalk Committee /Safe Routes To Schools, LPS Administration,
School Committee, Board of Selectmen, Police, and the Transportation Advisory
Committee. Would the Board of Selectmen be willing to name a liaison?
Thank you for your attention and we look forward to meeting on October 17th.
Judy Crocker
Safe Routes To School Coordinator
Lexington Sidewalk Committee
School Transportation Report 2011
Safe Routes to School, Lexington Public Schools Transportation, Lexpress
Summary
How do Lexington's nearly 6400 students get to and from school? Is the transportation method a
function of their particular school, day of the week, grade, or morning versus afternoon? Why
does your student take the school bus? Why not?
Together, the Lexington Sidewalk Committee's Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program,
Lexington Public Schools (LPS), and Lexpress sponsored a parent survey in March 2011 in order
to better understand how well our present public school transportation system serves the needs of
our students. The goal of the anonymous survey is to gather information on how to best improve
issues such as traffic congestion and safety at our nine neighborhood schools. The last survey of
this nature was performed in 2002 by the Lexington No- Idling Committee and the Lexington
PTA/PTO Presidents Board.
Of the approximately 4,100 Lexington public school families surveyed using the LPS Global
Connect system, the response rate was 30 %. Based on the tabulated results and comments
provided, the overwhelming tone of the survey respondents echoed that our public school
community wants change. Parents used the survey to express both their dissatisfaction and
approval with the current transportation system.
Overall, the culture of what is presently accepted as suitable modes of school transportation need to
be modified for the well -being of our students and the community at- large. Collectively, more
students need to use the school bus, more students should consider walking or bicycling, and
deterrents should be made to drivers in order to decrease the number of vehicles on school grounds.
Likewise, the school bus service should be modified in order to better serve its population.
Based on the conclusions formulated from the results of the survey, the following action items are
suggested as possible solutions.
For Improving Transportation Safety
• Develop a uniform school arrival/dismissal policy.
• Address school bus behavior.
• Work closely with LPD and school resource officers.
• Provide sturdy, visible bus passes.
• Make school zones more visible for vehicular traffic.
For Increasing School Bus_ Ridership
• Improve communication with the community.
• Work towards creating a more flexible afternoon transportation offering.
• Promote localized bus stops.
• Encourage and promote school bus ridership.
For Controlling Costs
• 31% of the comments submitted focused on cost. LPS is fully aware that it
charges a higher fee than surrounding districts. Understanding this, the authors
chose not to include cost as a variable in the survey. In addition, the authors feel
that further investigations into sound financial solutions are beyond the capacity
of this document except for basic commentary.
School Transportation Report 2011
Safe Routes to School, Lexington Public Schools Transportation, Lexpress
Introduction
How do Lexington's nearly 6400 students get to and from school? Is the transportation
method a function of their particular school, day of the week, grade, or morning versus
afternoon? Why does your student take the school bus? Why not?
In preparing the 2011 -12 school fiscal budget, Superintendent Dr. Ash identified the line .
item of Lexington Public Schools school bus transportation as an area which would
require additional funding if level services are to be maintained. The service of school
bus transportation typically does not break even — it continues to be subsidized even
though it is a fee - for - service. For 2010 -11, more students have qualified for both free
distance- eligible bus service (state mandated if grade K -6 student lives 2 miles or greater
from school) and for assistance due to financial hardship. The result has been an increase
in student school bus ridership but a greater deficit in school bus funding.
Currently, 33% of Lexington students are bussed. With 150 -250 vehicles transporting the
majority of students to the town's nine schools each am and pm, many in our community
feel that it is time to re- examine ways to increase school bus ridership and alternative
transportation methods in order to decrease the number of cars at Lexington schools.
Together, the Lexington Sidewalk Committee's Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program,
Lexington Public Schools (LPS), and Lexpress sponsored a parent survey in March 2011
in order to better understand how well our present public school transportation system
serves the needs of our students. The goal of the anonymous survey is to gather
information on how to best improve issues such as traffic congestion and safety at our
nine neighborhood schools. The last survey of this nature was performed in 2002 by the
Lexington No- Idling Committee and the Lexington PTA/PTO Presidents Board.
For the School Transportation survey 2011, see Appendix I.
For the comments received from the School Transportation Survey 2011, see Appendix lI.
Results
Of the approximately 4,100 Lexington public school families surveyed using the LPS
Global Connect system, 1,237 responses (30 %) were received within the twelve days that
the survey was open. The survey consisted of 9 questions where multiple responses were
allowed so as to meet the needs of families with more than one public school -aged child.
Because of this, the constant sum of these questions will not equal 100 %. An open -ended
response section was also included, which collected 664 comments (54 %).
2
Calculated Results
--How old is your student(s)?
Parents responded that their students are aged 11 -13 (40 %), 8 -10 (36 %), 14 -16 (29 %), 5-
7 (29 %), and lastly 16 -18 (21 %). The respondents were therefore rather evenly
distributed over school groupings.
What school does your child attend?
The single highest single response rate by school came from LHS (40 %), followed by the
two middle schools (16% and 22 %) (collectively 38 %). The elementary response rate
varied from 9 -11% (collectively 59 %).
—How is your student(s) transported to school?
Transportation TO School
School
Driven Bus Walk/Bike Carpool Lexpress MBTA
Elementary 47% 28% 19% 6% 0% 0%
Middle 31% 45% 17% 6% 0% 0%
High 51% 15% 15% 6% 10% 2%
The percentages of students who ride the school bus are consistent with current figures
from the LPS Transportation office. The high number of high school students being
driven can be explained for the majority drive or carpool versus taking the bus once they
reach (or a sibling) age 16.5.
—How is your student(s) transported from school?
Transportation FROM School
School
Driven Bus Walk/Bike Carpool Lexpress MBTA
Elementary 46% 27% 18% 9% 0% 0%
Middle 28% 43% 21% 7% 0% 0%
High 41% 15% 19% 6% 16% 3%
A greater number of high school students use public transportation ( Lexpress or MBTA)
as a means of departing school. Slightly more middle and high school students walk
home.
3
--If your student(s) engages in afternoon activities which affect how they depart school,
please name them.
After School
Activities
Extended
Day Sports Clubs
Other
Music
Elementary 33% 22% 9%
21%
14%
Middle 0% 40% 35%
13%
12%
High 0% 35% 3.4%
18%
13%
76% of those surveyed responded that their student participates
in after- school activities
which directly affect how they depart school.
If. your student(s) rides the bus, please tell us why.
Does Ride the School Bus
Convenience Safe Timely Eco- friendly Socialization
Elementary 37% 18% 15% 14% 10%
Middle 39% 19% 15% 14% 7%
High 38% 20% 19% 12% 6%
45% of those surveyed responded that their student does use the school bus. Of those
students using the school bus as a mode of transportation, the majority of respondents
were elementary parents, followed closely by middle school and lastly high school.
If your student(s) does not ride the bus, please tell us why.
Does NOT Ride School Bus
Not
Cost Not Timely Discipline Safety Ready
Elementary 49% 19% 12% 10% 9%
Middle 54% 21% 10% - 10% 10%
High 55% 27% N/A N/A 10%
60% of those surveyed responded that their student does not use the school bus. Of those
students not using the school bus as a mode of transportation, the majority of respondents
were elementary school parents, followed by high school and middle school.
IV
If your student(s) is driven to school, why do you make that choice?
Reasons Why Student is Driven to School
Elementary Middle High School
No place to cross
street 23% 15% 9%
No sidewalk
Cars too fast
Bad weather 14% 19% 16%
Too far to walk 11% 11% 15%
Drop -off on way to
work 8% 9% 13%
Convenience 8% 9% 13%
Safety 11% 7% 6%
After school activities 7% 8% 9%
Backpack too heavy 3% 10% 8%
Conclusion
Based on the tabulated results and the comments provided, the overwhelming tone of the
survey respondents echoed that our public school community wants change. Parents used
the survey to express both their dissatisfaction and approval with the current
transportation system.
Overall, the culture of what is presently accepted as suitable modes of school
transportation need to be modified for the well -being of our students and the community
at- large. Collectively, more students need to use the school bus, more students should
consider walking, and deterrents should be made to drivers in order to decrease the
number of vehicles on school grounds. Likewise, the school bus service should be
modified in order to better serve its population.
The major concerns of cost, convenience, and bus behavior are identical for both the
2002-and the 2011 surveys. Major changes in school culture occurring in the timeframe
between the surveys are reflected with the present increase in amount of time school staff
spends monitoring traffic as well as the shear volume of vehicular traffic experienced at
each school on a twice daily basis.
I
1. Community desires change:
• Families want the LPS Transportation service parameters to change in
order to better accommodate student's expanded schedules and needs.
Many expressed the need for a flexible afternoon transportation option.
• Families want the cost of the transportation service to change in order to
be more affordable and to be perceived as reasonable.
• Families want their neighbor's behavior to change by being more
courteous and respectful.
• Families wish for school traffic rules apply to everyone.
® Many families expressed their concern that the present volume of school
vehicular traffic is dangerous and should be addressed.
2. Positive responses regarding the survey:
• Many families were thankful for the opportunity to voice their opinion and
that the issue of school transportation was being addressed.
• Many families praised their bus drivers.
• Many families praised the school bus as a safe and convenient mode of
transportation.
3. Negative responses regarding school bus ridership:
• Cost — The universal term used to describe the current fee schedule was
prohibitive.
• Many families reported that the school bus is not timely and have
discipline and safety concerns.
• Length of bus route — Fewer students using the bus service equates into
fewer buses and therefore, longer routes.
• Timing of bus route — LPS uses one fleet of school buses to service all
schools by making multi -runs in succession, the order being high school
then middle school followed by elementary students. Buses arriving late
for elementary students, both at bus stops and arriving to school are most
often due to traffic delays on the HS and MS routes. The chief cause of
these delays is inaccessibility of school grounds due to on -site vehicular
traffic. The second greatest cause is weather.
• Other — accessibility, sidewalk conditions, vehicular speed and volume of
traffic
It should be stressed that the purpose of this survey is not to devise ways in which to
make it easier for anyone other than school buses and staff to drive onto school grounds.
No new parking spots are being proposed at any school. Each school is physically
designed for staff and limited visitor parking, along with a limited live drop- off /pick -up
area. The existing school infrastructure is'not designed to accommodate the present
volume of twice daily vehicular traffic, including the relatively new Fiske and Harrington
Schools. This was purposely planned at the latter two schools as a matter of safety,
physical constraints, and transportation choice priorities.
The survey results speak loudly of the need for a modification of the present culture of
personal vehicular travel on school grounds. The infrastructure design of LPS and
Lexington neighborhoods were not meant to sustain hundreds of cars per day. The
C�
situation poses a public health risk. The resulting gridlock and logjam of parent vehicles
create difficulties for emergency vehicles (most notably past incidents involving
ambulances at Diamond and Bridge), obstruct local roadways, pollutes, and creates a
quagmire for students and staff trying to safely navigate the situation. Add poor weather,
limited visibility due to the shear quantity of cars, and winter's snow and ice and the
combination is a pedestrian and vehicular nightmare. In addition, seeing as LPS uses its
school bus fleet in succession for its nine schools, delays at any site causes a cascade
affect and can directly be targeted as a primary reason for school bus tardiness (at bus
stops pickups, arriving to school, picking up from school, and afternoon bus stop
deliveries).
The easiest solution for easing vehicular traffic is to make it more difficult for parents to
drive onto school property. Encouraging alternate modes of transportation, such as
walking, biking, and using public transportation (school bus, Lexpress, MBTA) should be
greatly encouraged. Suggestions toward this end include dismissing walkers and busers
before others; enforce and install more No Parking areas, and improve local sidewalks
and pathways. Think of the revenue that could be generated if each personal car was
charged a toll to enter school grounds!
Taking the school bus is perhaps the least structured part of the public school student's
day. Incorporating aspects of a student's responsibility into their mode of transportation
to school by employing the already existing Open Circle program and LPS Anti - Bullying
Policy might help address perceived discipline and some safety issues. Positive aspects of
their daily travels might be included as positive feature from the storyline of "How Full is
Your Bucket." In addition, wider utilization of the Safe Routes to School program with
its mission of safety, exercise, and fostering a sense of community should be encouraged.
Interestingly, the aspect of school bus timeliness and overall safety directly correlated to
whether or not the student took the bus. Those who use the school bus service thought it
to be convenient, safe, and timely versus those who do not ride the school bus due to the
service being not timely as well as discipline and safety issues.
Based on these conclusions formulated from the results of the survey, the following
action items are suggested as possible solutions.
Suggested Action Items for Improving Transportation Safety
Develop a uniform school arrival /dismissal policy. With Lexington's model of
nine neighborhood schools come nine different infrastructure designs and school
priorities. Regardless of what works best for each school, some basis of
uniformity would provide a consistency in what is expected behavior and
demeanor, both for students and parents as well as principals and staff. This
would also provide for a smoother transition as families move -on from one school
building to the next. Such a policy should include uniform and proper use of
dedicated bus lanes, proper reporting and follow -up of school bus disciplinary
cases, priority for busers and walkers as well as consistent dismissal times.
Vl
Optimally, "those students taking the bus or walking would be released first,
followed by those being driven. Any such policy should be mailed and emailed to
each public student household in addition to newspaper coverage. A round table
meeting involving LPS Central Administration, LPS Transportation, principals,
assistant principals, DPW, Engineering, C & W Bus Company (present holder of
school bus contact), Safe Routes to Schools, Lexington Police (representing LPD,
school resource officers, and crossing guards), School Facilities, Selectmen, PTA
representatives, and the Town Manager may prove to be the most efficient and
fruitful manner in which to address this issue. Some consultant help may also be
available through the existing Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools
grant program.
2. Address school bus behavior. Many respondents named bullying, unsafe bus
behavior and bus stop behavior as determents for allowing their students to use
the school bus. School bus drivers give priority to driving the bus and not to
closely monitoring bus behavior of up to 40 students. Discipline and a student's
responsibility of decorum should be addressed as a team approach. The premise
of a student taking ownership and pride in his school should include the school
bus. Suggestions for improvements include better advertising of the LPS anti -
bullying policy, creating a fifth grade buddy system to help younger elementary
students, having a copy of the school bus discipline contract posted on the bus
along with assorted helpful safety reminder posters (check with C & W Bus in
order to meet fire code and eligibility), and the possibility of having electronic
monitoring on each bus. The latter would aid in observing both student and driver
behavior. Follow - through for those students bus drivers see as violating the
discipline contract should be properly handled by each school's principals.
Employ the principles of the Open Circle Program and the LPS Anti- Bullying
Policy.
3. Work closely with the Lexington Police and school resource officers. Working
with the LPD /school resource officers, ensure greater enforcement of crosswalk,
right on red, speeding, idling, and no passing of school buses displaying flashing
lights by vehicular violators would be a positive deterrent for all violators and
make pedestrians, bicyclists, and bus riders safer. In addition, these professionals
could help enforce school traffic policies as needed. Technology is also presently
available for exterior electronic monitoring on school buses in order to observe.
such unsafe driver behavior near buses.
4. Provide sturdy, visible bus passes. Suggestions have been made to laminate
school bus passes, which are distributed to each student authorized to use the bus
service. This may eliminate unauthorized students from taking the bus. Passes
would be placed on the exterior of a students backpack using a tiewrap for
elementary and middle school students. An unique, holographic sticker could be
placed on high school ID's before they are distributed in the early fall. Using
technology such as smart cards, these identification cards could evolve to include
other school services.
5. Make school zones more visible for vehicular traffic. Many neighborhood
roadways are posted.for speeds of at least 30mph and many of the major
thoroughfares have 2 lanes in each direction. Neither creates a pedestrian friendly
environment. Traffic calming measures such as installing more visible signage for
notification of entering a school zone in order to reduce vehicular speeds as well
as religious striping of crosswalks would create safer surroundings for our
students as well as enforcing the local speed limit.
6. Resolution of action items from survey comments section. An integral part of
SRTS is determining how to best troubleshoot problem areas identified by
families in our various neighborhoods. The survey respondents identified
numerous action items which are possible to address quickly using in -house
services of the DPW, Engineering, and PTA SRTS Committees. These problems
ranged from adjusting pedestrian/ traffic signal timing to shrubbery removal
encroaching on pedestrian pathways to eliminating the use of radios by bus
drivers.
Suggested Action Items for Increasing School Bus Ridership
1. Improve communication with the community. A number of parental comments
were based on false information and misconceptions. Efforts to better
communicate the facts on school bus transportation may include an updated and
more user- friendly FAQ section on the newly designed LPS website including
links to common sites such as LPS Transportation, Sidewalk Committee's Safe
Routes to School, and the new LPS Creating Safe Schools program, PTA/PTO
sponsored meetings (one for elementary and one for middle/high school grades)
discussing school transportation, encouraged participation in SRTS programs, and
- better communication of school traffic patterns and rules to parents.
2. Work towards creating a more flexible afternoon transportation offering. A
common complaint/suggestion involved high schoolers' need, and to a lesser
extent middle schoolers, for flexibility in their transportation needs due to after
school activities and to a lesser extent the LHS X- Block. For elementary students,
one -third of respondents enroll their student in an afternoon extended day
program. A majority of respondents voiced that they do not take the bus for their
students would only use it one -way, given the present school bus schedule. A
second survey was distributed in late April in order to ascertain if interest exits
for a flexible afternoon transportation option offered jointly between LPS and
Lexpress. The results will follow.
3. Promote localized bus stops. The sense of entitlement expressed by many paying
parents to ride the school bus has, in part, help to elongate bus routes. The length
of time a student is on a bus could be shortened if bus stops were to be more
localized, based on safe meeting areas. Individual stops are frowned upon unless
the stop is safer in such a location.
4. Encourage and promote school bus ridership. The number of buses available
depends on the number of students. The fewer the students, the fewer the number
of buses and therefore the longer the routes. The school bus is a good value and is
generally accepted as being the safest manner in which any student can be
transported to /from school. LPS could work more closely with other town
committees and organizations in order to better encourage students to ride the bus
or other forms of mass transportation.
I
Controlling School Transportation Costs
The single, most dominant theme of the parent survey responses centered on cost. 31%
of the comments submitted focused on the perceived high cost of using the school bus.
LPS is fully aware that it charges a higher fee for bus service than. other districts in the
surrounding area. Understanding this, the authors purposely chose not to include cost as a
variable in the survey. While the scope of this survey identifies this variable as being
significant, the authors feel that further investigations into sound financial solutions are
beyond the capacity of this document except for basic commentary. Changing the fee
structure is not an easy answer.
What is the history of fee - for - service school busing in Lexington? The town has charged
for school bus ridership since the turn of the century in order to alleviate strain from the
LPS operating budget. As a subsidized service, the fee saw its greatest increases
following the failure of the 2004 town override and in 2007 with the national jump in fuel
prices. Presently, the fee has not changed since 2008. The LPS operating budget is used
to close the gap between the actual service cost and collected ridership fees.
Reasons for the high cost of the LPS school bus service include higher contractual costs
due to the inclusion of requested line items by the town..These include seatbelts and
retrofitted or new school bus engines for fuel and pollution efficiencies. A high
student/bus route cost can also be attributed to the geographic distribution of students
who elect for school bus service. Inherent inefficiencies exist when a certain level of bus
ridership is not maintained while certain quantities of buses are required to manage the
assigned bus routes.
Basic costs of the public school bus include fuel, federally mandated service for grades
K -6 students living beyond a two mile radius from school, population of the ridership
(geographic and grade distribution within the town), and contractual needs.
The following are three scenarios for lowering school bus transportation costs:
• Provide service at cost.
• Provide service at a subsidized cost.
• Do not provide bus service except for mandated requirements.
The Lexington school bus service is partially subsidized even though it is a fee -for-
service. The program does not have a history of breaking even. In order to lower its
present cost point, the following -needs to occur:
• Increase ridership by approximately 1000 students.
• Increase ridership for high school students (buses are generally less than half full).
• Elementary and Middle school buses are generally full.
Therefore, the number of buses needs to be cut or increase the ridership dramatically at
the high school level. Adding buses at the elementary or middle school level may shorten
the individual bus routes but would not greatly lower the overall cost of the service.
10