Boundaries again.

[justvote]

lacy said:

Just vote - who determined that "it's been established that Rte. 59, may, in fact, keep the Fry attendance area from ever being walkers (again, as defined by the SB)." ?

The question is would Rt. 59 still be determined a hazard if it had a pedestrian bridge built over it? If that was so hazardous, why would they build it? Could children fall through it? I mean really - if it's built for the purpose of people walking or riding their bikes over it, then what is the hazard?

With all due respect, I don't believe that the posters on this board are in a position of authority to declare that the bridge would not be safe and that it would still be considered a hazard.

So IMHO anyone here proclaiming that the Fry attendance area could never be considered as walkers is pulling that out of their a** to promote some agenda of their own.

You're right, it is speculation that Fry would never by considered walkers, but isn't that what we do here? I actually agree with you that the bridge negates Rte. 59 from being a "vehicular hazard" as outlined in the transportation section of the procedures manual:

board.ipsd.org/policy/sec4/index.asp#T

The SB has already determined that Rte. 59 will keep Fry from ever being walkers as it definitely qualifies as a "vehicular hazard". Whether or not they remove that identifier based on the installation of a bridge crossing over it is the question.

[macy]

bob said:

So if a kid's bedroom is 1.5 miles from the school, does he bus or walk. Is it the lot or the corner of the house? Would it be neighbor vs neighbor?

Yeah, darn it... bring it on. LOL!

My opinion, this is all moot until we know the exact sites. Once we do, all hell can break loose.

[forthekids]

gatormom said:

Actually lacy precedent has been set in the last round of boundaries. A part of McCarty that would walk to BB were placed in those boundaries and the rest of McC was to go to WV.

I would ask that the portion of Fry that becomes walkers by virtue of the bridge should be allowed to stay at NV and the rest of Fry will attend whatever school the district assigns them too.

Would a student from Tall Grass be considered a walker if their house is within walking distance, but by having to walk from their house (NW part of the subdivision) to the SE location of the bridge, the distance becomes longer than what the district considers walkable?

[momof3]

forthekids said:

gatormom said:

Actually lacy precedent has been set in the last round of boundaries. A part of McCarty that would walk to BB were placed in those boundaries and the rest of McC was to go to WV.

I would ask that the portion of Fry that becomes walkers by virtue of the bridge should be allowed to stay at NV and the rest of Fry will attend whatever school the district assigns them too.

Would a student from Tall Grass be considered a walker if their house is within walking distance, but by having to walk from their house (NW part of the subdivision) to the SE location of the bridge, the distance becomes longer than what the district considers walkable?

My understanding is that it has to be on a sidewalk not crossing hazards. So even if a kid could walk on a sidewalk under 1.5 miles to NV if they would have to go out of their way to cross the bridge and that makes it more than 1.5 miles they are not walkers.

[lacy]

gatormom said:

Actually lacy precedent has been set in the last round of boundaries. A part of McCarty that would walk to BB were placed in those boundaries and the rest of McC was to go to WV.

I would ask that the portion of Fry that becomes walkers by virtue of the bridge should be allowed to stay at NV and the rest of Fry will attend whatever school the district assigns them too.

I'm not familiar with how this is applied throughout the district. I do know that they decided to keep Stillwater at NVHS to not split their neighborhood and some of them could have probably walked to BB!

So all I was saying was to be consistent. Don't treat any area differently than another.

[lacy]

justvote said:

lacy said:

Just vote - who determined that "it's been established that Rte. 59, may, in fact, keep the Fry attendance area from ever being walkers (again, as defined by the SB)." ?

The question is would Rt. 59 still be determined a hazard if it had a pedestrian bridge built over it? If that was so hazardous, why would they build it? Could children fall through it? I mean really - if it's built for the purpose of people walking or riding their bikes over it, then what is the hazard?

With all due respect, I don't believe that the posters on this board are in a position of authority to declare that the bridge would not be safe and that it would still be considered a hazard.

So IMHO anyone here proclaiming that the Fry attendance area could never be considered as walkers is pulling that out of their a** to promote some agenda of their own.

You're right, it is speculation that Fry would never by considered walkers, but isn't that what we do here? I actually agree with you that the bridge negates Rte. 59 from being a "vehicular hazard" as outlined in the transportation section of the procedures manual:

board.ipsd.org/policy/sec4/index.asp#T

The SB has already determined that Rte. 59 will keep Fry from ever being walkers as it definitely qualifies as a "vehicular hazard". Whether or not they remove that identifier based on the installation of a bridge crossing over it is the question.

Thank you Justvote. That was my point.

[lacy]

forthekids said:

gatormom said:

Actually lacy precedent has been set in the last round of boundaries. A part of McCarty that would walk to BB were placed in those boundaries and the rest of McC was to go to WV.

I would ask that the portion of Fry that becomes walkers by virtue of the bridge should be allowed to stay at NV and the rest of Fry will attend whatever school the district assigns them too.

Would a student from Tall Grass be considered a walker if their house is within walking distance, but by having to walk from their house (NW part of the subdivision) to the SE location of the bridge, the distance becomes longer than what the district considers walkable?

When this was looked at before, I think it was the route walking over the bridge. But who knows.

[proschool]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

Actually lacy precedent has been set in the last round of boundaries. A part of McCarty that would walk to BB were placed in those boundaries and the rest of McC was to go to WV.

I would ask that the portion of Fry that becomes walkers by virtue of the bridge should be allowed to stay at NV and the rest of Fry will attend whatever school the district assigns them too.

I'm not familiar with how this is applied throughout the district. I do know that they decided to keep Stillwater at NVHS to not split their neighborhood and some of them could have probably walked to BB!

So all I was saying was to be consistent. Don't treat any area differently than another.

Stillwater is across Route 59.

There are McCarty students would walk to BB but would have been bussed to WV. So I guess you would oppose sending Tallgrass to NV on thebasis that some of them are walkers.

Diamond Bay and Oakhurst are split between elementary schools so I guess you would oppose keeping all of Tallgrass at the NV on the basis that subdivisions should not be split.

VML travels across the district to Owen even though there are 20 closer elementary schools. So I guess you would oppose the thought of keeping Tallgrass from St. Johns on the basis that there are high schools that are closer to Tallgrass.

Am I reading you clearly?

[lacy]

The mantra was to "keep walkers, walkers". So just be consistent.

You seem to be pretty angry, "Pro" School. Why?

[EagleDad]

So Lacy, let me ask you this - if Fry are walkers to NV, aren't White Eagle as well? After all, they both corner on 95th and 59.

[proschool]

lacy said:

The mantra was to "keep walkers, walkers". So just be consistent.

You seem to be pretty angry, "Pro" School. Why?

But they were going to send students to WV who would have been walkers to BB. Hardly a mantra.

Actually, I'm a pretty happy guy but thanks for your concern.

[lacy]

eagledad said:

So Lacy, let me ask you this - if Fry are walkers to NV, aren't White Eagle as well? After all, they both corner on 95th and 59.

I guess if they're 1.5 miles away via the bridge, then yes - but I wouldn't think any would be.

[EagleDad]

You need to keep in mind that Heatherstone are White Eagle elementary - they are every bit just as far from NV as TG.

Also, I don't see any bridge

[bob]

DPC, haven't you been against the 3rd HS the whole time? Why the sudden interest in AME boundaries ? Do you now believe we need a 3rd HS or have I misunderstood your opinion on it?

[momof3]

More info on the EJ&E purchase & increased train traffic that was discussed earlier in this thread.
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/business/663405,6_3_NA23_EJE_S1.article#

Bells and whistles
Communities along EJ&E railway brace for increased train traffic
November 23, 2007
By CINDY WOJDYLA CAIN The Herald News
The proposed sale of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway would mean increased train traffic, and that has some Illinois communities along the route sounding the alarm.

Traffic on Frankfort-area EJ&E tracks would increase from about six trains a day to 28, said Mayor Jim Holland. That could affect motorists' safety, tie up traffic at railroad crossings and produce more noise in residential areas.

"I can see no benefit to my constituents," said Holland, who attended a committee of the whole meeting Wednesday to discuss the topic.

Canadian National Railway Co. announced in September that it wanted to buy the EJ&E - which runs through Plainfield, Crest Hill, Joliet, New Lenox, Frankfort and Mokena in Will County - for $300 million.

The company said it needs the tracks to detour around bottlenecks in Chicago. Traffic will increase on the U.S. Steel-owned EJ&E tracks if the deal is approved by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board.

Naperville's plans
Marcie Schatz, director of transportation, engineering and development for the city of Naperville, said city staff plans to meet with Canadian National late next week to talk more about the railroad's plans for the EJ&E tracks.
There are several crossings in Naperville, where the tracks cross Diehl Road, Ogden Avenue, 83rd Avenue, Wolf's Crossing Road and 111th Street, Schatz said.

"We're concerned about the impact of train traffic at these at-grade crossings," Schatz said.

The city also wants to make sure Canadian National is interested in moving forward with the STAR Line, a commuter rail line planned in cooperation with Metra that would use the EJ&E tracks.

"They're significantly increasing the number of hazardous material carloads, so we want to understand more about that," Schatz said.

Cities concerned
Frankfort isn't the only community concerned about increased train traffic. The city of Barrington and several surrounding communities have formed a coalition to fight the sale.
"Given that freight trains can take up to six minutes to pass through a single railroad crossing - even when things are running smoothly - we are looking at the potential for a traffic flow nightmare of immense proportions in our near future," Barrington officials posted on their Web site.

Plainfield, too, is concerned about the proposed sale's impact to the region, said Jim Testin, Plainfield's community development director. Village officials are reviewing CN's application before they decide on a course of action.

"It's just really coming to a head now," he said.

Joliet is less concerned with increased train traffic, however, said Jim Haller, the city's director of community and economic development. The EJ&E tracks, which run 198 miles from Waukegan in the north to Gary, Ind., and South Chicago in the east, have been in the area for more than 100 years, he said. And in past decades train traffic was much higher than it is now.

"Trains were coming in and out at all times," he said. "My guess is it (the increase in trains) would not be as many as back then."

Haller likened it to the fight by residents who live around O'Hare International Airport, which was there before the homes were built. He also said delays from trains chugging through Joliet wouldn't be that big of a deal.

"It really only takes a couple of minutes," he said. "I'm not as parochial as some of these folks who say, 'I don't want to be inconvenienced going to the Starbucks.'"

Also, Haller said that a lot of goods area consumers want to purchase come in to the area by rail.

"So be careful what you wish for," he said. "Nobody likes trucks either, but everyone likes to shop at Wal-Mart and pay pennies for items. ... In an urban society, there are certain things you're going to have to contend with."

Helping Chicago
CN officials say rerouting its trains to the "outskirts" of Chicago will help alleviate the environmental impact on the city.
"CN is now engaged in preliminary discussions with communities on the EJ&E that would see increased rail traffic as a result of the transaction, and will work with these communities to jointly find ways of addressing any specific concerns," according to a press release issued in October.

Frankfort's Holland said the transportation board has 30 days after CN filed its application on Oct. 30 to decide if this is a minor railroad sale or a significant sale.

If it's deemed a minor case, communities along the route would have only 45 days to mount arguments against the sale or for concessions in how train traffic increases will be handled, Holland said.

"We have to worry about this today, tomorrow and next week," he said. "We have to have a plan of action and do what we can."