DOCSLIB.ORG

School Safety Crossing Analysis Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
School Safety Crossing Analysis Final Report School Safety Crossing Analysis Final Report December, 2010 School Safety Crossing Analysis THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE COASTAL REGION MPO BOARD Shedrick Coleman, Chairman Pete Liakakis, Chairman J. Adam Ragsdale, Vice‐Chairman Otis Johnson, Vice‐Chairman Jon Pannell, Secretary Russ Abolt Lacy Manigault, Treasurer LTC José Aguilar Russ Abolt Jason Buelterman Ellis Cook Shedrick Coleman Ben Farmer Mark Egan Stephen Lufburrow Curtis Foltz Timothy Mackey Patrick S. Graham Tanya Milton Tennyson Holder Susan Myers William W. Hubbard Rochelle Small‐Toney James Hungerpiller Joseph Welch McArthur Jarrett Glenn Jones Mike Lamb Chad Reese Patrick Shay Rochelle Small‐Toney Vance Smith Anna Maria Thomas Wayne Tipton Steven Weathers This report is available at: http://www.thempc.org/Transportation/Transportation_Studies.htm "The opinions, findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation, the State of Georgia, or the Federal Highway Administration." "Prepared in cooperation with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration." NOTE: Recommendations in this report were developed by a licensed Professional Engineer and reviewed by a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Traffic Operations Engineer for Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Current Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 School Crossing Models .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Charlotte, North Carolina .............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Phoenix, Arizona ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 St. Petersburg, Florida ................................................................................................................. 11 4.0 Pedestrian Crossing Toolbox ........................................................................................................... 13 5.0 School Crossing Recommendations ................................................................................................ 25 5.1 Recommended Crossing Improvements at St. James Catholic School ....................................... 25 5.2 Recommended Crossing Templates ............................................................................................ 28 Appendix MPC School Crossing Safety Analysis, Existing Conditions Report………………………………………………………….34 Final, December 2010 1 Figures Figure 1: MUTCD (2009) Typical School Zone Signage ................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: MUTCD (2009) School Crossing Signage ........................................................................................ 5 Figure 3: MUTCD (2009) Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Sign ...................................................................... 5 Figure 4: MUTCD (2009) SCHOOL Word Marking ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Montgomery Cross Road at Laberta Boulevard Long‐Term Crosswalk Improvement Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 6. St. James Catholic School Recommended Internal Traffic Pattern .............................................. 27 Figure 7. Template 1: Midblock Crossing on Two‐Lane Roadway .............................................................. 29 Figure 8. Template 2: Crossing at Intersection of Two Two‐Lane Roadways ............................................. 30 Figure 9. Template 3: Midblock Crossing on Four‐Lane Roadway .............................................................. 31 Figure 10. Template 4: Crossing at Intersection of Two Four‐Lane Roadways ........................................... 32 Figure 11. Template 5: Midblock Crossing on Five‐Lane Roadway ............................................................. 33 Final, December 2010 2 1.0 Introduction The Chatham County‐Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) wishes to provide state‐of‐ the‐practice guidance for school zone crossing treatments throughout the Chatham County‐Savannah region. This report has been developed in response to concerns brought before the Chatham County Commission about a particular school crossing on Montgomery Cross Road at St. James Catholic School. With the understanding that other school crossing locations in the county may also need safety enhancements as traffic has increased over the years, the MPC is providing in this report crossing templates in addition to recommendations for the St. James Catholic School location. In order to develop the specific recommendations for the crossing at St. James Catholic School, an existing conditions analysis was conducted and the results are documented in Appendix A. This analysis included an inventory of roadway characteristics, existing roadway signage and striping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, available traffic and safety data, and school‐related traffic patterns. The Existing Conditions Report identifies short‐term improvements for the St. James pedestrian crossings that can be implemented prior to the start of the 2010 school year on August 16. To inform the development of recommendations for treatments within the region in addition to those at St. James Catholic School, this study provides an overview of practices used throughout the United States as well as the current standards that are used at school pedestrian crossings. Through an analysis of these measures, this study presents a toolbox of implementable crossing treatments and templates that can be utilized at school crossings throughout the Chatham County‐Savannah area. This study also provides long‐term recommended improvements for the pedestrian crossings located at the St. James Catholic School in Chatham County. 2.0 Current Requirements The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States Department of Transportation serves as the primary source for standard signage, striping, and signalization on all public roadways in the United States. It also provides guidelines for the treatment school zones, and is recognized as the industry standard for traffic control measures in these areas. This section outlines typical pedestrian crossing treatments within school zones as set forth by the MUTCD. All applications of signage, striping, and signalization should meet or exceed the standards presented by the MUTCD. Final, December 2010 3 The figure below shows example signing for a school zone. Signs should be placed at the start and end of school zones so that motorists are aware of reduced speed limits through the school zone as well as pedestrian presence in the area. The start of a school zone should be at least 200 feet in advance of the school grounds, a school crossing, or other school‐related activities. Figure 1: MUTCD (2009) Typical School Zone Signage Treatments for pedestrian crossings are also included in the MUTCD. Crossings within a school zone should be accompanied with advance warning and school crossing signage, shown in the following figure. Final, December 2010 4 Figure 2: MUTCD (2009) School Crossing Signage The in‐street State Law sign shown above should only be used along the center line or other lane lines at unsignalized locations, not post‐mounted along the side of the roadway. The overhead pedestrian crossing sign, shown at right, may also be used in school zones to remind road users of laws regarding right of way at unsignalized pedestrian crossings. This sign should be placed over the roadway at the crosswalk location and may replace the standard sign with schoolchildren symbol (S1‐1) at unsignalized Figure 3: MUTCD (2009) Overhead Pedestrian crossings, shown in Figure 2. Crossing Sign Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians as they cross the roadway by delineating the designated crossing area, and they should be solid white. The 2009 edition of the MUTCD states that new crosswalks should not be installed without other measures to lower vehicle speeds across roadways with a speed limit above 40 mph and that are uncontrolled and either: Final, December 2010 5 A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an average daily traffic (ADT) of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater.1 Crosswalks should consist of two transverse stripes spaced no less than six feet apart, extending the full width of the pavement and at least 6 inches and no more than 24 inches in width (12 inches preferred). The area of the crosswalk may also be marked with white lines parallel to the traffic flow or at a 45‐ degree angle to the line of the crosswalk. Lines should be 12 to 24 inches wide, separated by gaps of 12 to 60 inches. Gaps between lines should be less than 2.5 times the width of the lines, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crossing Guard Manuals As References
    KANSAS GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS PRODUCED BY THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KDOT) AND THE KANSAS SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD COMMITTEE Summer 2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to the following persons who where instrumental in preparing this document, "Kansas Guidelines for School Crossing Guards." Kansas School Crossing Guard Committee David A. Church, Bureau Chief Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Cheryl Hendrixson, Traffic Engineer Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Larry E. Bluthardt, Supervisor School Bus Safety Education Unit Kansas Department of Education David Schwartz, Highway Safety Engineer Bureau of Traffic Safety Kansas Department of Transportation Paul Ahlenius, Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Bureau of Transportation Planning Kansas Department of Transportation Vicky Johnson, Attorney IV Office of Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation Adam Pritchard, Traffic Engineer Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Additional copies of these guidelines can be obtained by calling or writing: Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Engineering Eisenhower State Office Building 700 SW Harrison, 6th floor Topeka, KS 66603-3754 Telephone: 785-296-8593 FAX: 785 296-3619 Electronic copies are also available at the following website: http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficEng/sztoolbox/default.asp 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Laws and Legislation
    Part III. RESOURCES New Jersey Laws and Legislation New Jersey Laws and Legislation NEW JERSEY LAWS and LEGISLATION Laws, Regulations, Policies • When considering traffic laws and regulations, knowing the difference between laws and regulations may be helpful. • A Law is a directive that compels or prohibits behavior. That is, a law in intended to make people do something, like pay taxes, or not do something, like stealing. Generally, laws are the work of the legislature. Congress makes laws. • A Regulation is a rule or set of rules to carry out the intent of the law. So, if the legislature makes a law that you must pay taxes, regulations must be developed that decide who might be exempt and under what conditions, or how often payments need to be made to the treasury. Generally, regulations are the work of the executive branch, also known as the bureaucracy. • A Policy is a plan or course of action that guides decisions, but may not carry the full force of law or a regulation to carry out a law. A policy might be how your local IRS office decides who to audit. • That motorists must obey a crossing guard’s directive to stop is supported by law and by regulation. How a crossing guard moves their arms to effectively issue their directive is policy. CROSSING GUARDS 40A:9-154.1. Adult school crossing guards; appointment; term; revocation; qualifications; supervision and direction The governing body, or the chief executive, or the chief administrative officer, as appropriate to the form of government of any municipality, may appoint adult school crossing guards for terms not exceeding one year and revoke such appointments for cause and after proper hearing before the chief of police or other chief law enforcement officer of the municipality.
    [Show full text]
  • Stop Or Yield Required
    CHAPTER 65 STOP OR YIELD REQUIRED 65.01 Stop or Yield 65.04 Stop When Traffic Is Obstructed 65.02 School Stops 65.05 Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalks 65.03 Stop Before Crossing Sidewalk 65.06 Yielding the Right-of-Way to School Crossing Guards 65.01 STOP OR YIELD. Every driver of a vehicle shall stop or yield as directed by traffic control devices posted in accordance with Chapter 61 of this Traffic Code. 65.02 SCHOOL STOPS. At any school crossing zone, every driver of a vehicle approaching said zone shall bring the vehicle to a full stop at a point ten (10) feet from the approach side of the crosswalk marked by an authorized school stop sign and thereafter proceed in a careful and prudent manner until the vehicle shall have passed through such school crossing zone. (Code of Iowa, Sec. 321.249) 65.03 STOP BEFORE CROSSING SIDEWALK. The driver of a vehicle emerging from a private roadway, alley, driveway, or building shall stop such vehicle immediately prior to driving onto the sidewalk area and thereafter shall proceed into the sidewalk area only when able to do so without danger to pedestrian traffic and shall yield the right-of- way to any vehicular traffic on the street into which the vehicle is entering. (Code of Iowa, Sec. 321.353) 65.04 STOP WHEN TRAFFIC IS OBSTRUCTED. Notwithstanding any traffic control signal indication to proceed, no driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing Guard Placement Considerations and Gap Assessment
    Placement Considerations and Gap Assessment CROSSING GUARD PLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND GAP ASSESSMENT Many factors contribute to the need for a Crossing Guard. General federal guidance, provided by the FHWA MUTCD, states that “adult crossing guards may be used to provide gaps in traffic at school crossings where an engineering study has shown that adequate gaps need to be created and where authorized by law.” “The frequency of gaps in the traffic stream that are sufficient for student crossing is different at each crossing location.” (FHWA MUTCD 2009 Section 7D.02 Federal guidance Section 7A.03 states) The Institute of Transportation Engineers provides the following guidance to help determine if a particular location requires the use of an adult crossing guard or police officer: • An adult crossing guard or police officer is more feasible and economical than either a pedestrian grade separation structure or a traffic control signal specifically installed to handle the crossing problem. • There are special hazards, at either signalized or non-signalized locations that can be properly handled only by adult supervision. These hazards include unusual conditions such as complicated intersections, heavy vehicular turning movements and high vehicular approach speeds. • A change in school routes or school districts is imminent, thus requiring protection at the location for only a limited time. An example would include construction within a city which detours the preferred school route to another location that may need additional control. • Adult crossing guards are normally assigned where official supervision of elementary school pedestrians is desirable while they cross a public street or highway and at least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of two hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily use the crossing while going to and from school.
    [Show full text]
  • BOARD of TRUSTEES June 24, 2019
    BOARD OF TRUSTEES June 24, 2019 PRESENT: Mayor Monachino Lapey Trustee Annunziata Trustee Senerchia Trustee Bennett Trustee Cataldi DeLillo Attorney Cornachio Manager Pierpont PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND FIRE SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Monachino Lapey led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance and notified those in attendance where the fire exits were located. The Mayor welcomed everyone. She said that the village has new video equipment which will continue to promote transparency. The Mayor spoke about New York State Department of Transportation’s decision to place a monopole on their property heading south on Boston Post Road near the Hutchinson River Parkway entrance. He asked the Village Manager to give addition details on the location. Manager Pierpont said that the proposal is to place it south at exit seven on the Hutchinson River Parkway at the clover leaf that connects to the southbound Hutchinson River Parkway. The representatives from the Department of Transportation were invited to attend tonight’s Board meeting but they were not able to attend. Trustee Cataldi DeLillo said that she is looking forward to their coming in to discuss this proposal. Mayor Monachino Lapey spoke about a series of events in the City of Mount Vernon that have impacts on our residents. She said that a significant number of complaints about the noise level of ninety decibel levels in yards in Pelham Manor were reported to her and our police department. There were reports of houses that were shaking. The Mayor said that we are continuing the dialogue with Mount Vernon and we are continuing to make headway.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 3: Eyeballs! Before You Begin…
    SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM lesson : eyeBalls! Before you Begin… This lesson introduces the concept of “sightlines” to students, and the importance of having a clear line of sight between pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers when crossing or sharing the road. It teaches the game “Eyeballs,” with concepts that middle school students will be able to generalize and recognize when they are outside in later lessons. “Eyeballs” is modeled after a simple touch-and-go soccer drill. Many ball sports and other PE activities depend on clear sightlines to make successful plays. Consider using other games throughout the school year to remind students and reinforce the importance of sightlines for staying safe as pedestrians. Why this lesson is important: Having a clear sightline between drivers and pedestrians is critical for preventing collisions. In this lesson, we teach students to “see and be seen” by making eye contact with drivers, and give them practice with several situations that can impede sightlines. Sightlines can be impeded in many ways. Hills or curves in the road, overgrowth and improperly parked cars are a few common conditions that compromise sightlines. In this crosswalk near an elementary school, the sightline to traffic is seriously impeded by the curve and slope in the road. Unfortunately, it is a direct route to a housing complex where many school families live. The school improves the situation by placing a crossing guard at the left point of the crosswalk, where sightlines are opened up to the road below. This car is illegally parked because it is too close to the corner.
    [Show full text]
  • Enfield Board of Education Enfield, Connecticut
    1 ENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION 2 ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT 3 4 5 TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS 3545.1 6 7 I. Transportation of Students 8 9 The Board of Education will provide transportation for pupils under 10 provisions of state law and regulations. The superintendent of schools shall 11 administer the operation. 12 13 Transportation by private carrier may be provided whenever such 14 practice is more economical than using school district-owned/leased 15 facilities. Parents may be reimbursed for transportation of eligible pupils 16 whenever such practice is more economical or convenient. 17 18 A. Eligibility 19 20 Resident public and private nonprofit school pupils living outside of the 21 defined walking limits (subparagraph 1. below), based on the most direct 22 route from the pupil's home beginning at a point at the curb or edge of a 23 public road or highway nearest the home to the edge of the school 24 property or bus pickup areas, will be furnished transportation by the 25 Board of Education. Pupils will be eligible for school transportation if 26 one or more of the following criteria are present: 27 28 1. The walking distance for the pupil, either to school or to the nearest 29 bus stop, is in excess of the following distances: 30 31 (a) For pupils enrolled in grades K through 3, up to one (1) mile; 32 33 (b) For students enrolled grades 4 through 6 one and one quarter 34 (1.25) miles; 35 36 (c) For pupils enrolled in grades 7 through 12, one and one half (1.5) 37 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • School Crossing Guard Programs and School Walking Route Maps
    SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAMS AND SCHOOL WALKING ROUTE MAPS FINAL PROJECT REPORT by Kevin Chang University of Idaho Sponsorship PacTrans and University of Idaho for Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium (PacTrans) USDOT University Transportation Center for Federal Region 10 University of Washington More Hall 112, Box 352700 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 In cooperation with US Department of Transportation- Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium, the U.S. Government and matching sponsor assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date School Crossing Guard Programs and School Walking Route Maps August 1, 2019 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kevin Chang, University of Idaho 0000-0002-7675-6598 2017-S-UI-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) PacTrans Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium 11. Contract or Grant No. University Transportation Center for Region 10 University of Washington More Hall 112 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 69A3551747110 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered United States of America Research Department of Transportation 14.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Crossing Guards and Child Pedestrian Safety in New Jersey
    The Role of Crossing Guards and Child Pedestrian Safety in New Jersey Prepared by: Catherine Bull and Leigh Ann Von Hagen New Jersey Safe Routes to School Resource Center Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Prepared for: State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Date: December 2014 Introduction | 1 Introduction Within the past decade, interest in improving the number of students walking to school.2, 3 children’s rates of physical activity and reduc- In 1969, 48% of children aged 5 to 14 walked ing traffic congestion and motor vehicle emis- or biked to school, while in 2009 only 13% sions around schools has spurred the creation of students walked or biked to school. During of Safe Routes to School programs and other that time period, the percentage of students initiatives to encourage active travel to school. being bused rose from 38% to 39%, while the Children who walk to and from school are percentage of students driven to school rose more physically active, have lower body mass from 12% to 44%,4 showing the move away index scores, and are more likely to meet phys- from active travel and towards personal vehicle ical activity guidelines than children who use travel to school. motorized forms of travel to school.1 In addi- tion, fewer cars on the road lead to safer condi- All travel to school exposes children to vehic- tions for pedestrian and bicycle travel. ular crashes. In the United States during 2009, 1,314 children ages 14 years and younger died However, real and perceived safety issues as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and ap- counter efforts to increase the numbers of chil- proximately 179,000 were injured.5 Nation- dren walking and biking to and from school.
    [Show full text]
  • School Walk and Bike Routes: a Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students
    School Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students February 2015 Photo by Don Willot 15-01-0048 Acknowledgments The School Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students 2014 technical update has been completed by: Allan J Jones, Director of Pupil Transportation, Office Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director, City of Kirkland of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Hawkins, Thurston County Public Health and James Kissee, Physical Activity Specialist, Washington Social Services Department State Department of Health David Hiller, Director, Cascade Bicycle Club MJ Haught, Program Manager, Washington Traffic Brian Jones, Program Director, Washington Traffic Safety Commission Safety Commission Blake Trask, Policy Director, Washington Bikes David Levinger, Mobility Education Foundation Seth Schromen-Wawrin, Safe Routes to School Mary Sue Linville, Director of Risk Management, Program Manager, Washington Bikes Washington Schools Risk Management Pool Jennifer Cole, Safe Routes to School Program Kathy McCormick, Senior Planner, Thurston Regional Director, Feet First Planning Council Ed Spilker, Transportation Planner, Washington State Barbara Mertens, Governmental Relations, Department of Transportation Washington Association of School Administrators Previous Contributors Include: Rick Mowlds, Traffic Engineer, Washington State Department of Transportation Ruth Abad, Washington State Department of Health Jim Seitz, Planning and
    [Show full text]
  • School Zone Safety
    THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING It is important that we drive responsibly, GUARDS whether in a school zone or not. Although For more information about children may be concentrated near a school, Where there is an adult School Zone Safety or every street in every neighborhood at some crossing guard at a other traffic issues time has children and other pedestrians using crosswalk, you have to contact the street and sidewalks. Appropriate driving obey the crossing SCHOOL includes slowing and being prepared to stop guard’s directions. City of Madison Traffic Engineering Division for pedestrians, stopping as directed by While driving or 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Suite 100 crossing guards, and yielding to pedestrians in bicycling on the street, ZONE PO Box 2986 crosswalks. Whenever possible, children are Stop when directed to encouraged to take the bus or walk to school to Madison, WI 53701-2986 by the crossing reduce congestion and traffic hazards near guard. 608-266-4761 (voice) SAFETY school grounds. Stop no closer than 608-267-1158 (fax) 10 feet from the crossing guard. PARKING NEAR SCHOOLS www.cityofmadison.com/trafficengineering Do not block a crosswalk or intersection. The City Of Madison Traffic Engineering Stay stopped until the pedestrians and the Division frequently receives requests from crossing guard have reached the curb, and parents, neighbors, and school officials City of Madison stay stopped until the crossing guard has concerned about children’s safety near schools. Police Department dropped their stop sign. This is your Traffic signs around school property are placed 211 S.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Most Walkable Cities File:///C:/Users/Sunyana/Desktop/Published Articles/Walkable.Html
    America's Most Walkable Cities file:///C:/Users/Sunyana/Desktop/Published Articles/walkable.html America's Most Walkable Cities From June '98 Walking Magazine ©1998 Dave McGovern--Dave's World Class Do you ever walk to the local book store or ice cream shop on a whim? Could you? There was a time, not too long ago, when it was easy for most people to get to a corner store for a quick-fix of Chaucer or cappuccino chip. Homes were close to "Mom & Pop" stores, and traffic moved at a gentle pace over quiet streets. But over the years it's become more and more challenging to get around on foot. Restrictive zoning isolates residential areas far from retail shopping, and ever-widening traffic lanes and huge parking lots create unsafe barriers to pedestrians. Now, owning a big walled-in house with a giant yard and two cars in the driveway has long been "The American Dream," but that dream is changing: People are longing to be a part of a community again, rather than feeling isolated from their neighbors. And being able to amble around town on foot can be a big part of that sense of community. We're not necessarily talking Mayberry here, but wouldn't it be nice if you could walk a few blocks from your home to get a haircut from Floyd, or to shoot the breeze with Sheriff Taylor? With so many people employed at big companies like Title Max it can be difficult to even think about walking to work, especially if the company is located in a big office or industrial park.
    [Show full text]