This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Gaskin and Associates Consulting Group, LLC
Discovery STEM proposal
October 8 2026
11
Circulation alternatives and selection criteria
Compare each feasible circulation arrangement with the retained baseline using the same school
windows, vehicle demand, crossing definitions and resource assumptions. The options below are a
comparison set, not adopted designs. Select the route only after necessary field and professional
review.
Alternative
What changes
Main question to resolve
A Retain and
formalize
Current route with verified loading rules,
supervision, signs and maintenance.
Can daily controls manage observed
conflicts and demand reliably?
B Modify campus
circulation
Approved loading positions,
sequencing, staff/visitor parking or
pedestrian separation change.
Does the layout reduce conflicts without
backing, blocked access or bus
interference?
C Evaluate Oak
Avenue
Parent loading is assessed in the
teacher/visitor lot identified in the
reported recommendation.
Do geometry, queue storage, walking
connections and parking support safe
operation?
D Other engineered
configuration
An alternative layout or physical work is
developed if A-C do not meet
requirements.
Can a funded design address the
measured problem while preserving
access?
Criteria that every option must satisfy
Require acceptable pedestrian, bus, accessible and emergency access; lawful authority for the
controls; a deliverable supervision plan; and a funded implementation and maintenance plan. Do not
average an unresolved serious access problem into a favorable overall score. Missing evidence
should remain unresolved or require further review.
Comparison record
For each retained option, document the route sketch and assumptions, crossing exposure and
conflicts, queue/spillback, loading behavior, staff duties and backup, effects on neighboring access,
one-time and recurring cost, approvals and residual concerns. Explain why rejected options fail or why
a measure needs further design.
Speed control and enforcement may support any circulation option. They do not replace the route
comparison. A speed camera cannot separate a turning vehicle from a child or supervise a crossing.
A new lot should not be labeled safer merely because it is farther from Chestnut Avenue.Jump to an indexed page (28 of 28)