in Schools
Now We Know Exactly Where We Would Put the New Park City School Campus
A few days ago we wrote that we believe the Park City School District should move their Kearns Campus to east of Highway 40, between Home Depot and Quinn’s Junction. We believe eventually all Park City Schools could be housed in this area. The move would benefit a number of people including students, teachers, the county, Park City, school administrators, and the public in general. However, we didn’t have anywhere specific in mind to house the campus, other than “east of Highway 40”.
A thoughtful citizen contacted us and said, “have you ever heard of the Triangle Parcel?” We said that we had heard of the Bermuda Triangle. The citizen then came down to our level and said, “you know where the alpacas are, on the east side of Highway 40?” Oh yeah. Now we were communicating. They then informed us that this 111 acres is jointly owned by Summit County and Park City. What? WHAT?
Yes. Perhaps the perfect location for a school campus is already owned by two big benefactors of such a move.
We realize this property is still in the South Summit School District, but many things about this crazy concept aren’t seeming quite as crazy.
We still don’t think it will happen, but it’s Friday, so why not dream BIG?
Parkrag
We believe in citizen journalism. We believe there are stories to tell that can help to shape our community for the better. We believe tomorrow's Park City can be better than today's.
Comments
3 Comments
So not one kid could walk to school if that parcel was used, every single child would be delivered by car or bus or gondola/people mover or whatever we dream up. Would that be an issue? Staff would all have to be transported the same way. That would be a lot of traffic using that off/on ramp, plus parking issues. Properly managed ? Could be done….
Jill-
You bring up some very good points. I think faculty would have to be able to drive. There would be no way to get this done if that wasn’t be the case. They would likely need the flexibility that driving would enable.
As for kids not being able to walk, you make a good point. However, I really wonder how many are walking today. I’m sure there are some, but do the majority of high school students walk? Middle School? Junior High? For those populations, I would guess that percentage is very small. I bet certain elementary schools have higher walking population than others. Still, judging by the cars I have seen at each of them, does the percentage walking ever top 25% of the elementary students, even during the the most favorable times of the year?
Add on to that, the likelihood 5th grade (along with 6th) will be at Ecker Hill in the upcoming future and that’s even less of a walking population.
I also believe we would want to strive to make the new campus utilize buses, bikes, people movers as much as possible. This not only cuts down on “our car problem” it ingrains public transportation as a concept early in our children’s lives.
Finally, I would hope that with the easy access to our trail system (from the triangle parcel), this might also encourage current uses such as more biking to school. Perhaps there are even new ways to make our trail system be part of our transportation system (e-bikes, people movers).
Don’t get me wrong. No idea is perfect and there are bound to be issues to overcome. There may even be insurmountable issues that make this idea unfeasible. That said, we’d hope our leaders would think a little out of the box when looking at such a big issue. Even if this isn’t the right solution there have to be 5 better ideas than spending $30 million rebuilding a school in-place and exacerbating transportation issues at the same time.
I agree that throwing money at the existing problems aren’t going to fix them. And while there are issues with the plan you proposed, it’s definitely a step in the right direction. Out of the box is the place we have to go here and all ideas should be considered!
Leave a Comment