Clearly, no matter where the new Bancroft is sited or what its size, there will be impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, traffic patterns, infrastructure, and environment. These impacts are exactly what the Feasibility Study is designed to explore, and we are only at the beginning of that process now. No site location has been identified as a preferred alternative. To date, wetland areas have been identified and a draft survey of the site has been completed.
A note on process: while it is the aim of the School Committee to vote upon an enrollment number for the new Bancroft in early December, we will have an opportunity to amend that number if necessary based upon the results of the traffic analysis or other aspects of the Feasibility Study.
For those who were unable to attend, below is a list of concerns that came up during the neighborhood meeting based on my notes. If I've missed something, feel free to add to the list by posting a comment. Also, please note that neighbor concerns and feedback related to the building site are included in the report that will be sent to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
Concerns related to building the new school behind the existing building:
- would require new site infrastructure (roads, electric, sewer)
- major loss of green space, woods, wildlife habitat
- eliminates walking path used by students, community members
- would exacerbate traffic issues at the intersection of Holt Road and Stinson Road
- proximity to wetlands/flood zones and the existence of a high water table would impact neighboring properties and pose challenges to building design and future expansion opportunities
- would create noise and light pollution in neighborhood with few options to minimize this impact
- current traffic and safety issues would be exacerbated if the enrollment of the school is increased
- water drainage problems affect Bancroft Road side as well
- illegal parking already an issue when there are special events at Bancroft
- traffic analysis must include rainy days and days that follow a significant snowfall, and must take into account the changing seasonal use of the current playing fields
Posts
Thank you for the summary of the Neighborhood meeting.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is clear these are all options that must be considered as part of the feasibility study, I would like to clarify that it is the potential new access road described by SMMA (the design firm) that is of another concern for the back site. This specifically would create the additional dangerous traffic pattern at the intersection of Holt and Stinson Roads. Additionally, it would pull more traffic onto the small roads away from Rt. 28 and eliminate the one safe walking path away from car/bus traffic the children (and community) use today.
I hope this is only considered for the sake of meeting the Feasibility Study requirements, and not truly seen as a viable option. It would alter the landscape of the entire neighborhood and create a dangerous roadway for abutters and neighbors alike which is contrary to MSBA guidelines.
Thank you for this open forum.
There are alot of comments about increased traffic to Holt and Bancroft roads. If school population increases absolutely we'll increase traffic on these small roads. I'm certain the traffic magmt. plan will make the best recommendations given our road limitations. Yes, traffic will increase, but we're talking about only a short time frame twice a day (one hour at start and end of school). We are not building a shopping center where there is continous movement of vechicles to and from all day.
ReplyDeleteSchools, their common areas, playgrounds and playing fields are used at all times of the day and week. Some of our most significant traffic problems occur in the late afternoon (after school) and weekends during soccer practice and games. It may not be a shopping mall, but it will certainly feel like one to the neighborhood. There is no compelling reason we should put our citizens in danger for one hour or one minute of a day.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment about traffic. When you think about it, WE are all contributing to the problem by transporting our kids to school. Maybe more of us should have our kids ride the bus. It's already driving thru the neighborhood. For some riding the bus can be stressful - we need to address that separately and make it a safe mode of transport. But for the majority - parent drop off/pick-up is a means of letting the child sleep a little longer and to get the child home quick so afterschol activities can begin. We all lead a hurried life.
ReplyDeleteFinally, there is great concern about environmental impacts - think of the additional energy we are wasting everyday transporting our child to/from school. Let's use the public transportation and reduce traffic and conserve energy at the same time.
In response to the comment that traffic would increase for only a small portion of the day - currently, the traffic on Bancroft Road is significant during periods of the early morning, afternoon, weekend events and evening events at the school. If there is a school wide evening event, the parking lot is full, the cars park directly on the side walks on Bancroft Rd making a narrow road, with unique curves, even more narrow, with even less visibility. If it is raining, the cars for parent-pickup spill over out of the parking lot of the school, onto Bancroft Rd - providing a barrier to other cars, or even for emergency vehicles.
ReplyDeleteIf it snows, and there snowbanks, the road is functionally one lane, with even less visibility around the curves.
For children, or residents who walk on the side walks, cars readily speed around the hairpin turn just outside of the school entrance/exit. The visibility around the corner by the school is very limited making this a concern.
There are children who walk on this street to and from school. Bancroft road is narrow, and functionally one lane if there is any work being done on the street, or if there are two buses attempting to pass in opposite directions. The traffic feasibility study will be critical, and I am sure, it will be thoughtful, but the impact of significant increases in traffic, with regard to maintaining a safe environment for our neighbors and childen, cannot be underestimated, no matter what time of the day.
In addition to the above comment, many High Plain residents also described the effect of a new school being the central location for staging non-school town wide events, activities, and performances. This increases the traffic during non-school hours (weekends, evenings) beyond just the size of the student body year round.
ReplyDeleteThe difference at High Plain is it was built for only 534 students, limiting the amount of traffic, and it was already highly accessible from the existing wide roads. (High Plain enrolls 524 today).
Many of us moved to Andover precisely to avoid urban sprawl. If we allow it to creep into one area of town, it will creep into the rest.
Don't forget that Wood Hill Middle School is attached to High Plain, and the two together have about 1000 students, which is more than what has been discussed for Bancroft.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to taking the bus instead of driving children to school, I would if I could. We live slightly under a mile from school, therefore we do not qualify for the bus. However, the road we live on does not have sidewalks, it is winding with many trees reducing visibility around corners so it is not safe for young children (or anybody for that matter) to walk to school. I debated it with the school when my oldest started kindgergarten but they would not allow her to take the bus. Therefore I drive them to school out of necessity, not because of a frivolous reason such as letting them sleep a little later.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks to Annie Gilbert for creating this blog and giving the citizens of Andover, and of the Bancroft area in particular, a forum to share their views. I think all the concerns people have expressed here and elsewhere about traffic, school size, site location, road safety, drainage issues and the potential impact ANY change could have on the neighborhood are valid and worthy of attention, study and discussion.
ReplyDeleteYet the Bancroft community is still a part of Andover, and we have to face the fact that our town has a challenge. We have two aged schools that are at the end of their useful lives. The state has offered Andover the opportunity to address and effectively replace both problem schools, through a combination of redistricting and construction of a new, single, larger school. This is a one-time opportunity. If we replace Bancroft now but ignore the Shawsheen problem, it could be a decade or more before state money becomes available to us again. Given conditions there, that is unacceptable.
Moreover, these circumstances present us with an opportunity begin to address our town’s cost structure. Bancroft and Shawsheen, because of their age, are expensive to maintain. Reducing the number of elementary schools to five from six will save money that can be redirected to other, more critical educational purposes while also helping contain the cost of running our educational system.
For these reasons, I now support a plan that would replace the existing Bancroft School with one that accommodates up to 700 K-5 students. Will this impact our local community? Undoubtedly. But change comes to us all, and I believe the impact can be minimized in a number of ways. The current traffic flow in and out of the school, including the turn-ins from Bancroft Road and the student drop-off circle, are terribly inefficient, and could be greatly improved with the new school. Modern school design can make a 700-student school fit into the site and the community without overwhelming either. And neighborly carpooling and good use of buses can lessen the number of cars going in and out each day.
After attending several meetings of the School Committee and School Building Committee, including a the well-attended Nov. 14 meeting at Bancroft, there is no doubt in my mind that those individuals who are responsible for the decision are listening closely to us and taking our concerns into account, and would never accept a solution that compromises on safety. I accept that not every single person or household will be happy with the ultimate decision, whatever it is, but I encourage all of us to see our way through to the larger issues and what is in the best interest of Andover as a whole.
Absolutely (regarding High Plain/Wood Hill combination). I just meant since the building was only built for 534 students, it could only house a certain size 'town event', which would limit that type of extraneous traffic there. I think the 2 schools 'share' an auditorium there.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the High Plain # was interesting in terms of asking what our goal is for all of our schools in Andover. To plan to build bigger and bigger schools for our kids and put them in populations of 700+ at the age of 6? Or to try to keep the more suburban school feel of a smaller school population when we plan our future schools. It's just a question.
Note - working parents also end up having to drive their kids when the bus schedule doesn't work for them and the roads are too dangerous for walking.
No one disputes the fact that the Bancroft community is part of Andover but we must remember that it is only one part. If this project were to continue with a potential 700+ elementary population, it would be the second largest school in town after the high school. Current FY10 projections are 457 Bancroft, 536 High Plain, 343 Sanborn, 330 Shawsheen, 576 South, and 692 West. Even our middle school FY10 projections are only 560 Doherty, 523 West, and 410 Wood Hill. Clearly the town has historically valued smaller school populations.
ReplyDeleteLet us remember that the Sanborn school was architecturally created for expansion on 30 acres of viable flat land. While I understand the process the school committee must undergo in making its Bancroft enrollment decision, townwide equity must be key. Where is the equity in the 700+ Bancroft proposal in such a tight, challenging residential setting?
I agree wholeheartedly with Lisa that in an ideal world we might seek and achieve some degree of equivalence of size among the elementary schools. Unfortunately, we're operating with some very real-world constraints.
ReplyDeleteThe state will partially fund the work we do on the Bancroft site but, it seems clear, not elsewhere. Theoretically I suppose, Andover could accept the state's partial funding for a 500-student Bancroft replacement and then pay the full cost, without state help, of new construction at Sanborn or somewhere else to accommodate the Shawsheen population.
I don't believe the taxpayers of Andover would accept such a proposal, however. Our community, like every other, is increasingly conscious of how its money is spent. At a time of across-the-board budget cuts, I cannot see how we could justify eschewing state support and spending millions of additional dollars on a self-funded school construction project.
In this tight economy where we are losing teachers and critical programs, I agree we must find the best use of our tax dollars to address our needs. However, "bigger is better" will not necessarily lead to reduced costs or resolve our capacity issues, but it will certainly leave our town with irreversible changes and possibly short term trade offs in other areas, such as programs and teachers.
ReplyDeleteOur town should always work to maintain equity in any economy. If we are committed to maintaining reasonable class sizes, we should be just as stringent to maintaining reasonable population sizes at all our schools. In tough times, perhaps it means we need to tighten our definition of capacity to share the load of redistricting the Shawsheen community. All but 143 West El students can filter back to their neighborhood schools. A portion of these 143 students could possibly be redistricted to the more underutilized school sites. The remainder could fall under the Bancroft Building project or be met with leasing or purchasing refurbished portables at a reduced overall cost to the town.
Building to a more appropriate size (500-600) has the benefits of:
• Containing our project costs to request less funding from the town
• Allowing Shawsheen to close (although these are only delayed savings if the town needs to renovate the building for other purposes)
• Maintaining equity without needing to request more building funds for the lifespan of the portables (15-20 years?)
• Working towards a long term sustainable capacity solution
• Creating short term savings to put towards critical educational needs, including teachers and programs
Building to an appropriate size will give us the added benefits of developing responsibly on this site versus “engineering” to desperately fit a bigger building that might drastically alter the environment and erase historical lands that date back to the 1700s. A town needs to be fiscally responsible, but not panic in tough times and erase the history on which it is predicated just because a portion of State funds pigeon hole us into an incomplete solution.
“Bigger is better” when we have the money to spend. When we don’t, “Bigger” means we lose in other areas, such as more teacher lay offs, program cuts, lost historical value, and lower quality of education. We should absolutely take advantage of MSBA funding, but this is not a cost free project. We need to determine how best to use the funds we can hopefully obtain, but define our own standards in addition to State mandates. Once this decision is made, it is irreversible with some trade offs gone forever.
I encourage the school committee to include the preschool in the Bancroft project. This will allow us to take advantage of state funds, build a state of the art preschool rather than retrofit modulars and, most importantly, keep our K-5 population equitable with the other elementary schools in the district, even if the total population reaches 700.
ReplyDelete