Have you ever been stuck in Montana traffic?
We’ve all seen the flyers showing all of our wide open spaces and the very sparsely populated interstates with majestic mountains as a backdrop I’m sure, but once you get into the Montana towns that have seemingly grown up too fast over the past 40 some odd years, you might want to take another look at the wide open space mantra that we’ve become so used to hearing.
Poor city planning and explosive growth have both teamed up to give Missoula the dubious distinction of being first place in Montana as having the worst traffic, according to INRIX, a traffic data and analytics company.
Montana is growing, and all of those sleepy little towns in western Montana that were once filled with plaid shirts and Elmer Fudd hats are taking the brunt of that growth. Small valleys in the west are bursting to the brim with literally everybody and anybody that bought into that whole wide open spaces deal that our flyers are so known for.
The Missoula valley is small and tight as far as valleys go, so it’s no wonder that all of the surrounding hills are full of houses. Streets are narrow, congested, and were seemingly built by those who thought it would be great to follow that cow around the pasture.
Travel farther east to Bozeman and you’ll see a lot of the same thing. The core of these towns were built back in the by-gone era of the horse drawn model T with no thought to any possible future growth or development. It was only in the mid to late 80’s that folks in these towns started to wake up to what might lay ahead in the fanatical growth department. Being proactive (with regard to growth) wasn’t a term that had ever existed in the western Montana city planner lexicon until the mid to late 90’s. By then, it was too late. The gnarly wait times at un-synchronized traffic lights on the narrow streets were now a thing.
Enter Great Falls, Montana. The only known to be planned city in the entire state. With Missoula being stuck with all of it’s tiny 1 foot approach transitions, Great Falls sports it’s 5 foot approach transitions (street construction speak). I’ve built approaches in both Missoula and Great Falls. Great Falls is literally the very definition of what it might be like to live in a land with all of those wide open spaces. Even the downtown core, minus Central Ave, is spacious with plenty of room to park. Central Ave. in Great Falls was FUBAR’ED into some quasi-quaint little something or ‘ruther throwback to what Missoula’s core functions are like today for some reason that defies any and all explanation and it’s about as tough to get around on too.
Being stuck in Montana traffic is more of a thing these days in western Montana than it is in eastern Montana. Missoula’s traffic woes have even gone so far as to include the near entirety of the US93 corridor, from Eureka to Sula.
The air quality in our western Montana valleys is atrocious. People sitting, idling, waiting, sometimes for seeming eternities, burning all of the fuel that ads to the already saturated valley inversions that western Montana is so known for. Doesn’t anyone find it odd that most of our state’s environmentalists have chosen to live in the areas of our state that are the most polluted?
But I digress — The problem here is traffic.
Have I ever been stuck in Montana traffic? Of course I have. Way back in the far reaches of my brain, I can recall having to sit at the now infamous malfunction junction in Missoula. I remember driving Reserve St. from Brooks to the interstate in a record time of 50 minutes back when Reserve St was only two lanes (was normally one hour and 20 to drive it).
Long wait times in Montana traffic can only be measured in local terms statewide because I’ve driven areas much worse. It’s going to be all about a certain perspective.
I used to bitch about Seattle traffic, that is, until I drove Houston.
When I worked the FEMA houses after hurricane Ike in southeast Texas, it was normal to spend 20 hours a week on the interstate. I think about those days in Texas, from Sugarland to Bay Town to Galveston to Beaumont as they might relate to my Montana driving experiences, and these days, places like Missoula gets a nod and a wink from me with regard to it’s traffic.
Of all 280 U.S. cities covered in the INRIX report, Missoula ranks 63rd for traffic delays.
National polls are what they are and sometimes are fun to read because of their entertainment value. The poll with regard to Montana commute times, what with all of their best city/worst city case scenarios only hits the mark when making reference to Missoula.
I’m guessing that if the poll was taken today, we might be seeing Kalispell included in the mix somewhere along the line. To go even a step further with the whole poll deal, I’d like to see fuel consumption rates included for our western Montana friends as it might relate to the commute times.
The reason why I might mention fuel here is because I use less fuel driving from Vaughn to Malmstrom than I do driving from Broadway to Lolo on average — fuel consumption can say a lot with regard to the difficulty of any commute as far as I’m concerned. I’d be interested in looking at the stats from some back east poll service that would have natural resources factored into the commute. Time is pretty easy to calculate, adding fuel consumption into the mix might mean that poll researchers would actually have to come to Montana to get the real numbers.
Mentioning actual time lost being stuck in Montana traffic is all just fine and dandy and all, but what would really drive the point home, and make the polling a bit more useful on these so-called long commutes would be if they included the actual real cost of the fuel, and the carbon footprint that might be involved whilst sitting at light after light after light.
You can sign up to receive the INRIX 2022 Traffic Scorecard Report here: https://inrix.com/scorecard/#form-download-the-full-report
At any rate — ’till next time.
Thanks for the read.
Happy Trails.
School Choice? Let’s try teacher choice
Originally published by: Antonette Bowman — February 21, 2023
The House Education and Workforce Committee convened a hearing last week entitled “American Education in Crisis.” The perennial left–right debate between promoting parents’ rights and protecting public schools was on full display.
Committee Chair Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina, used her opening statement to argue for extending “education freedom” and to defend parents’ prerogative to take their children and the public funding that goes with them to private, charter, or home schools. Representative Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon, countered by expressing her “strong opposition” to plans that would “funnel taxpayer dollars to unaccountable private schools and for-profit charter schools,” saying that such an approach would “undermine the effectiveness of public education.”
With both sides launching familiar salvos in a policy debate that never seems to go anywhere, what’s needed are reforms to improve American education that could actually garner bipartisan support. A policy of teacher choice could do just that by addressing some of the legitimate concerns of parents while preventing a damaging exodus of students and financial resources from many of America’s public schools. Indeed, letting parents and guardians of public school students choose from available teachers could empower parents and restore the parent-teacher-school relationship, facilitate more effective teaching, improve student learning, and elevate the status of the teaching profession.
To implement a policy of teacher choice, K-12 public schools could provide parents and guardians with teacher profiles and offer the opportunity to pick from available teachers at the beginning of each semester. These profiles could feature a balance of qualitative and quantitative information – including the teacher’s educational background and performance, student and parent testimonials, a description of teaching philosophy, and brief video footage of teachers speaking directly to parents and working in the classroom.
Allowing parents to choose who teaches their children would build greater trust with teachers. Parents would feel more empowered, and teachers would feel honored by the choice and more motivated to perform well. Parents and teachers could then work together to tailor more creative and effective curricula for students.
Teacher-choice policies would also boost student learning by facilitating better instruction. According to RAND, teachers matter more to student achievement than any other aspect of schooling. Permitting parents to find a pedagogical match for their children will enhance learning, as kids are more likely to excel when they have good personal relationships with their teachers and feel welcome in the classroom.
This model would reward top teachers and shine a spotlight on under-performing teachers, who could then choose to emulate the high performers or find a new line of work. As less competent teachers depart, morale and mutual respect will improve among remaining teachers. This, in turn, will elevate the image and status of the school and the teaching profession generally.
Critics of a teacher-choice policy might argue that some parents will make bad decisions. Some may rely on rumors about teachers or select teachers thought to be easy graders. Negligent parents may even fail to pick a teacher for their child at all. These challenges can be managed by administrators and school districts and must be weighed against the benefits of an approach that empowers parents.
Critics may also argue that a teacher-choice policy would create an increased administrative burden. Adopting this approach would no doubt require an investment of staff time and energy. But schools already expend substantial time to achieve a relatively equal student distribution among classes by achievement level, behavioral and medical considerations, language ability, gender, physical maturity, special needs, and even personality conflicts with faculty.
Besides, a teacher-choice policy would generate its own distribution – perhaps a more effective one in some schools. Different parents will want different types of teachers. When necessary, counselors and administrators can work with parents to even out the student distribution, based on mutual consent. Public schools can ease some of the burden by creating online registration systems for selection of courses and teachers, as most colleges and universities do.
Over the long term, under-performing teachers who are not a good fit for the school and community will struggle to attract students and will need to move on.
And that’s exactly the point.
The Left is correct that if we abandon public schools and allow them to deteriorate, we shouldn’t be surprised if our democracy declines, too. But the Right has a point in emphasizing the prerogatives of parents when it comes to their children’s education. Who can blame parents for being frustrated when their child is taught in a public school by an obviously subpar teacher?
Establishing a policy of teacher choice can begin to bridge the partisan divide by simultaneously empowering parents, preserving public schools, and perhaps even catalyzing a renaissance in American education. This is an approach we should all be able to support.
sourced: This article was originally published by RealClearEducation and made available via RealClearWire