3 ms·

Not driving would mean smaller schools closer to home, and infrastructure that allows kids to ride their bike to school. It's completely doable, but it does req

by mcv 5y ago

Not driving would mean smaller schools closer to home, and infrastructure that allows kids to ride their bike to school. It's completely doable, but it does require people to care about more than just cars.

rootusrootus 5y ago
It would significantly expand taxes, and that nearly always faces stiff opposition with voters. Especially when it is an open-ended increase.
- thethethethe 5y ago
  > It would significantly expand taxes How exactly? Do you have any examples? Also, have you ever seen the price of car infrastructure? I would be willing to bet that denser walkable urban infrastructure projects are waaaaay cheaper than building and maintaining sprawling road, sewage, and power transmission networks. Sprawl is seriously draining the finances of many small cities and towns in the US. There's a whole book about it: https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns You could also just watch this smug video https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
  - adamc 5y ago
    Yeah, but it's not terribly likely that you could stop maintaining the sprawl, because it's already there. Certainly not quickly.
    - thethethethe 5y ago
      Yeah they are going to raise taxes to pay for it because that's all they can do. Which is the opposite of what OP said
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    The only way you could sell it as an overall less expensive option would be with really elaborate studies that could convincingly tie the transportation effects to the design of the school system. But, when it comes to schools, fewer buildings means lower costs. We've been suffering this for years, there aren't anywhere near as many schools in my district as there were 30 or 40 years ago, even as the number of students go up. It's less expensive to consolidate the schools into a fewer number of locations and increase the capacity of the remaining locations. Ergo, going the other direction and creating more, smaller schools (each with their own infrastructure, custodians, some level of administration, etc) is going to require taxpayers to foot the bill. And not like a levy that only lasts for X years, but on an ongoing basis. Where I live (Oregon) there is massive resistance to new taxes. I do not think we are unique in that regard.
judge2020 5y ago
America is actively against letting your kid out of your sight, with the fear of bad actors perpetuated by primetime news channels being the driving factor. The advent of only needing to part with your child when you drop them off at school, or watch them get on the bus, provides a framework for chain-of-custody and accountability if anything were to happen to the child. Unless you still allow car access for the parents worried about this, simply putting more schools within a mile or two of homes isn't going to work without parents being on board.
- watwut 5y ago
  A school being a mile away with safe sidewalk tend to convince people the kid can go alone sooner.

by mcv 5y ago

rootusrootus 5y ago

It would significantly expand taxes, and that nearly always faces stiff opposition with voters. Especially when it is an open-ended increase.

thethethethe 5y ago
> It would significantly expand taxes How exactly? Do you have any examples? Also, have you ever seen the price of car infrastructure? I would be willing to bet that denser walkable urban infrastructure projects are waaaaay cheaper than building and maintaining sprawling road, sewage, and power transmission networks. Sprawl is seriously draining the finances of many small cities and towns in the US. There's a whole book about it: https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns You could also just watch this smug video https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
- adamc 5y ago
  Yeah, but it's not terribly likely that you could stop maintaining the sprawl, because it's already there. Certainly not quickly.
  - thethethethe 5y ago
    Yeah they are going to raise taxes to pay for it because that's all they can do. Which is the opposite of what OP said
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The only way you could sell it as an overall less expensive option would be with really elaborate studies that could convincingly tie the transportation effects to the design of the school system. But, when it comes to schools, fewer buildings means lower costs. We've been suffering this for years, there aren't anywhere near as many schools in my district as there were 30 or 40 years ago, even as the number of students go up. It's less expensive to consolidate the schools into a fewer number of locations and increase the capacity of the remaining locations. Ergo, going the other direction and creating more, smaller schools (each with their own infrastructure, custodians, some level of administration, etc) is going to require taxpayers to foot the bill. And not like a levy that only lasts for X years, but on an ongoing basis. Where I live (Oregon) there is massive resistance to new taxes. I do not think we are unique in that regard.

judge2020 5y ago

America is actively against letting your kid out of your sight, with the fear of bad actors perpetuated by primetime news channels being the driving factor. The advent of only needing to part with your child when you drop them off at school, or watch them get on the bus, provides a framework for chain-of-custody and accountability if anything were to happen to the child. Unless you still allow car access for the parents worried about this, simply putting more schools within a mile or two of homes isn't going to work without parents being on board.

watwut 5y ago
A school being a mile away with safe sidewalk tend to convince people the kid can go alone sooner.