Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Student Transportation Routes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews hazardous and courtesy bus-route recommendations; Franklin request for new service raises capacity questions

2812219 · March 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Provo School District staff and a traffic and safety committee reviewed hazardous-route and courtesy-stop requests and recommended continuing several funded routes while flagging a new request at Franklin Elementary that would require reassigning buses or buying additional vehicles.

Provo School District staff and a newly formed traffic and safety committee reviewed hazardous-route and courtesy-stop requests and presented recommendations for next year, including a request from Franklin Elementary for a new courtesy route tied to imminent road construction.

The committee — which included district transportation staff, police (Sergeant Bascom), city representatives, school administrators and parent representatives — reviewed existing courtesy stops and considered a new request from Franklin’s School Community Council. Staff provided an itemized list of current courtesy stops, student counts per stop, and committee recommendations. Examples: an Amelia Earhart area route serves about 78 students where students would otherwise cross Center Street and I‑15; the committee recommended continuing that funded service. Several Canyon Crest, Shoreline and Spring Creek stops were also recommended to continue, with suggestions to consolidate stops where practical. The committee determined that Wasatch routes no longer meet the committee's hazard threshold (the route distance and surface street profile changed with the new Wasatch school location), though Transportation staff recommended retaining those routes for staffing-hour continuity unless the board directs otherwise.

A new request from Franklin’s community council asked the district to fund a courtesy route east of 500 West because projected construction (University Avenue bridge/roadwork) will increase neighborhood traffic volumes and present pedestrian safety concerns at key crossings (300 South & 500 West and a railroad crossing near 700 West/600 South). The committee recommended approval of temporary service to reflect the short-term construction impacts; staff noted that extending the courtesy route to Franklin could have knock-on effects — e.g., the district would need to reassign buses now used for Wasatch or purchase additional buses, and bell‑time adjustments could be required to make routing work.

Troy (Transportation) presented estimated annual operating costs by route using the state mileage/minute formula (district estimate ~ $1.87 per mile plus $0.82 per minute per route measure) and an aggregate cost of previously unfunded stops. Independence High’s city‑spanning route remains the largest cost driver. The committee urged a site visit/walking tour for board members to inspect route hazards before a late‑April vote; staff said the board should make routing decisions in time to give families notice before the next school year.

Ending: The board asked staff to schedule walking tours of flagged areas (Franklin, Timpanogos, Wasatch) and to return with precise cost and bell‑time implications so the board can vote in April and provide families timely notice.