Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears concerns about crowded bus runs, asks for follow-up on routes and after‑care costs
Summary
School committee members raised concerns about several routes—especially bus 20—where weekday counts approached seating capacity; staff said the district is monitoring counts, will follow up with the transportation vendor, and will provide a more detailed breakdown of riders and route timing.
Committee members at the Freetown Lakeville School Committee meeting flagged multiple bus routes with high ridership counts and asked district staff for follow-up data on route timing and cost allocation.
District staff presented a periodic bus census taken on a Tuesday that lists morning and afternoon rider counts by route. The district reported a total enrollment of 2,810 students (see separate agenda item) and said drivers and routing logistics affect whether a route can include an additional high‑school run.
Committee members singled out bus 20 and bus 4 for follow-up. Bus 20 carried between the mid‑50s and high‑60s riders on the census day; district staff noted that a two‑to‑a‑seat capacity can allow up to 71 riders but acknowledged that such loading is not ideal, especially for middle‑school students. Staff told members the bus ride for bus 20 was reported at about 43 minutes on the route described in the census and that two large stops comprise most of the load on that run. Committee members asked whether the after‑care program is inflating midday and afternoon ridership and whether costs associated with transporting after‑care participants should be allocated to that program rather than the district’s general transportation budget.
Mr. Rezendiz (transportation staff) was asked to provide a more detailed breakdown of bus 20 and bus 4 runs and to explain historical ridership comparisons; the administration agreed to follow up with the transportation vendor and to provide additional route‑level timing data. Staff also noted the district had eliminated two buses from the prior year’s routing and that some runs cannot be reconfigured to add a high‑school tier because of timing constraints.
Committee members requested answers to several specific items: the location and timing of the heaviest stops on bus 20, the proportion of riders who use a route only for the after‑care program, whether a shared‑use approach could reduce load on other runs (for example, using a late‑return bus already funded by the district), and whether program costs for after‑care should be allocated differently to reflect transportation usage.
District staff said they would return with a more detailed breakdown and that they would ask the transportation vendor to explain the routing decisions and whether alternative configurations are feasible.
