D204 to reveal proposed Metea boundaries - Part 2

[bob]

napermom said:

Bob, I am a bit perplexed as to why you seem to me to really want Fry to go to WV. If anyone makes an argument for Fry to stay at NV, you jump in and say why that shouldn't be so. I don't believe you live in the SW, so I'm curious why you get so passionate about this topic. No offense meant, just curious.

Now we ALL know that very few of our darlings will walk over that bridge to get to school, any more than our little ES darlings walk to Fry. The carpool line is 20 minutes deep on any given day. HOWEVER.....if you're defined a walker, D204 does not have to pay Laidlaw to come and pick you up. That saves our district....ALL of our district.... money. So even if those kids don't walk across that bridge, the fact that they CAN keeps some of your money in your pocket if we go to NV. Seems like a good thing.

When I asked the question about the bridge earlier, it really was to diffuse the subject if the bridge was not built in order to send TG kids to Neuqua. BUT, if that was part of the language used to get Naperville on board to spend a million dollars on the thing, SHOULDN'T that be considered? If I were the City Council, I'd be a bit irritated with D204.

Fry keeps on insisting that they are walkers. I am just sayng you can't insist when the definition isn't actually known.

Someone asked me for proof about continuous sidewalks. I gave them proof along with an actually area just like Fry's bridge that is bused.

It looks like there is a some kind of rule about bike paths, walking bridges and continous sidewalks that we are missing.

[macy]

gatordog said:

(Repost from early December on then hypothetical north site)
Lets allow split MS's. Shoot for 50/50 split when thats the case.

Both these cases enrollment is balanced pretty well btw HS's. A feature here is PET (Ashwood) growth goes to WV and Kendall, Builta growth to NV. Smaller scale Watts (Lehigh St) growth goes to MV.

Option 1 set out to minimize splits. Option 2 intentionally tried to maximize split MS (value in lots of students knowing really well students at other HSs).

old post:


I tried to minimize ES splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. ( an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

edit: option 2 tweak should keep STECK walkers at WV. You get the idea.

Gatordog,

According to my numbers your option 1 (and option 2 with all the splits) leave MVHS way short, WVHS too high and NVHS under...

With the numbers I'm using, at least 7 schools need to feed into MVHS.

What numbers are you using?

I'm using actual enrollment by subdivision (grid code)- elementary for kids in the district from grades K-12 in the system today.

What numbers are you using?

[macy]

bob said:

napermom said:

Bob, I am a bit perplexed as to why you seem to me to really want Fry to go to WV. If anyone makes an argument for Fry to stay at NV, you jump in and say why that shouldn't be so. I don't believe you live in the SW, so I'm curious why you get so passionate about this topic. No offense meant, just curious.

Now we ALL know that very few of our darlings will walk over that bridge to get to school, any more than our little ES darlings walk to Fry. The carpool line is 20 minutes deep on any given day. HOWEVER.....if you're defined a walker, D204 does not have to pay Laidlaw to come and pick you up. That saves our district....ALL of our district.... money. So even if those kids don't walk across that bridge, the fact that they CAN keeps some of your money in your pocket if we go to NV. Seems like a good thing.

When I asked the question about the bridge earlier, it really was to diffuse the subject if the bridge was not built in order to send TG kids to Neuqua. BUT, if that was part of the language used to get Naperville on board to spend a million dollars on the thing, SHOULDN'T that be considered? If I were the City Council, I'd be a bit irritated with D204.

Fry keeps on insisting that they are walkers. I am just sayng you can't insist when the definition isn't actually known.

Someone asked me for proof about continuous sidewalks. I gave them proof along with an actually area just like Fry's bridge that is bused.

It looks like there is a some kind of rule about bike paths, walking bridges and continous sidewalks that we are missing.

All this talk about walkers doesn't really apply to the criteria the board set, does it?

I don't see anything about walkers in the criteria. I only see criteria minimizing transportation costs.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

napermom said:

Now we ALL know that very few of our darlings will walk over that bridge to get to school, any more than our little ES darlings walk to Fry. The carpool line is 20 minutes deep on any given day. HOWEVER.....if you're defined a walker, D204 does not have to pay Laidlaw to come and pick you up. That saves our district....ALL of our district.... money. So even if those kids don't walk across that bridge, the fact that they CAN keeps some of your money in your pocket if we go to NV. Seems like a good thing.

When I asked the question about the bridge earlier, it really was to diffuse the subject if the bridge was not built in order to send TG kids to Neuqua. BUT, if that was part of the language used to get Naperville on board to spend a million dollars on the thing, SHOULDN'T that be considered? If I were the City Council, I'd be a bit irritated with D204.

I like the part in the funding proposal that " Parents that drop their children off at school due to the safety issues of crossing a main north-south road will be able to walk to school with their kids instead of hopping in the car to drive the children to school." Can you picture every morning a bunch of moms walking their 12th graders to school? Of course not, and if you think the lazy kids of today are going to walk over it, you are nuts. You make a valid point that eliminating buses will save us money. But all I see is that it will increase the car parking lot troubles when more kids are forced to drive the 1.5 miles to school when they could take the bus. Yikes, all those extra teens driving out there? Keep me away from NV in the mornings and afternoons please....I still think that based on the SB's brush off a few years ago, it is not a valid point. I'm not sure why... maybe it is the non-contiguous sidewalks and the example from the WV area convinces me that I just don't think Fry can really use this argument. Especially when I see it is being placed at 103rd. Isn't the border of Tall Grass 103rd? So all these kids are going to walk south, cross the bridge and then walk north (along Rt. 59) or cut across fields and yards to get to school? Sounds really safe to me. I thought the idea of the bridge was to get the kids away from Rt. 59 yet they will be walking right by the busy traffic as they walk from 103rd to 95th STreet.

[WeBe204]

macy said:

gatordog said:

(Repost from early December on then hypothetical north site)
Lets allow split MS's. Shoot for 50/50 split when thats the case.

Both these cases enrollment is balanced pretty well btw HS's. A feature here is PET (Ashwood) growth goes to WV and Kendall, Builta growth to NV. Smaller scale Watts (Lehigh St) growth goes to MV.

Option 1 set out to minimize splits. Option 2 intentionally tried to maximize split MS (value in lots of students knowing really well students at other HSs).

old post:


I tried to minimize ES splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. ( an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

edit: option 2 tweak should keep STECK walkers at WV. You get the idea.

Gatordog,

According to my numbers your option 1 (and option 2 with all the splits) leave MVHS way short, WVHS too high and NVHS under...

With the numbers I'm using, at least 7 schools need to feed into MVHS.

What numbers are you using?

I'm using actual enrollment by subdivision (grid code)- elementary for kids in the district from grades K-12 in the system today.

What numbers are you using?

What every numbers it takes to maintain the boundaries of an ES that does not exist anymore (Wheatland) and put a dividing line down 248 rather than 59. Cheap shot I know, but I could not resist

[momof156graders]

www.dot.state.il.us/busing.pdf
Use this link to access the state of Illinois bussing laws. It should answer all questions about the definition of what a walker is. There are point systems in place to constitue what is considered safe. This is a very useful document.

[bob]

momof156graders said:

www.dot.state.il.us/busing.pdf
Use this link to access the state of Illinois bussing laws. It should answer all questions about the definition of what a walker is. There are point systems in place to constitue what is considered safe. This is a very useful document.

Cool.

It looks like walking along Rt 59 even with a sidewalk is a big negative.

[justvote]

Did I just read that right about the bridge? Is it really being put way down on 103rd street? I assumed it was going further north. If that is true, then there will be very few walkers (as defined by 1.5 mile rule) from the Fry community. If you have to walk south to the bridge, walk over the bridge, back north to 95th and east to NV, I can't imagine anyone is less than 1.5 miles from the school (except for the few who live right next to the bridge). I agreed at one time that if Fry has walkers, AS DEFINED BY THE DISTRICT, because of the bridge, then Fry had a legitimate reason to stay at NV, but if Bob is right and the entire community will still be defined as bussers, then the point is moot. Couple that with the location of the bridge, and the bridge becomes even less of a factor to take into consideration. There has been so much talk about the bridge over the last few months, but I never saw anyone post the actual location of it until now.

[confused]

bob said:

momof156graders said:

www.dot.state.il.us/busing.pdf
Use this link to access the state of Illinois bussing laws. It should answer all questions about the definition of what a walker is. There are point systems in place to constitue what is considered safe. This is a very useful document.

Cool.

It looks like walking along Rt 59 even with a sidewalk is a big negative.

The document talks about walking next to a hazardous road, not over it on a bridge that doesn't even come into contact with the road. The bridge is not a sidewalk. I'm not even a civil engineer, but I can see the difference.

What's your angle, bob? I'm curious as napermom was why you're so set on sending Fry at all costs. Do you have a personal stake?

[confused]

justvote said:

Did I just read that right about the bridge? Is it really being put way down on 103rd street? I assumed it was going further north. If that is true, then there will be very few walkers (as defined by 1.5 mile rule) from the Fry community. If you have to walk south to the bridge, walk over the bridge, back north to 95th and east to NV, I can't imagine anyone is less than 1.5 miles from the school (except for the few who live right next to the bridge). I agreed at one time that if Fry has walkers, AS DEFINED BY THE DISTRICT, because of the bridge, then Fry had a legitimate reason to stay at NV, but if Bob is right and the entire community will still be defined as bussers, then the point is moot. Couple that with the location of the bridge, and the bridge becomes even less of a factor to take into consideration. There has been so much talk about the bridge over the last few months, but I never saw anyone post the actual location of it until now.

You must live up north - take a little drive down Rte 59 - it is not clear down by 103rd - it's halfway between. It comes right out of the center of Tall Grass. Does anyone from TG have a diagram?

[concerned]

The bridge is being built b/t 95 and 103rd. Not at 103rd. The bridge will connect Frontier park on the east and the Virgil Gilman trail on the west.

If this bridge makes walkers and it does fit the criteria of cutting transportation cost and if it could eliminate splits in ms and es on the south, then Fry and Peterson at NV should be considered.

If they use west of 59 then all west of 59 should go, not just Ashwood. I am for fair, clean boundaries that will last.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

confused said:

bob said:

Cool.

It looks like walking along Rt 59 even with a sidewalk is a big negative.

The document talks about walking next to a hazardous road, not over it on a bridge that doesn't even come into contact with the road. The bridge is not a sidewalk. I'm not even a civil engineer, but I can see the difference.

What's your angle, bob? I'm curious as napermom was why you're so set on sending Fry at all costs. Do you have a personal stake?

What's wrong with Bob playing "devil's advocate?" I can't speak for Bob but I think some people need to point out that other people's arguments really aren't valid. Maybe he's out there trying to make you see that your case isn't that strong. Regardless of where Bob lives, I think that based on the information presented above by himself and others, most people would agree that the chances of Fry being classified as walkers is slim to none. I can't believe people would rather their children walk along Rt. 59 (and we all know how teenagers are so careful and don't horse around on their way to school) and risk a potentially dangerous situation like walking next to traffic going 60 mph just so their kids can go to NV. In my opinion, I would rather my child cross RR tracks than walk any distance along Rt. 59 if there are 100's of cars per hour travelling at very high speeds 10 feet from my children.

[confused]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

confused said:

The document talks about walking next to a hazardous road, not over it on a bridge that doesn't even come into contact with the road. The bridge is not a sidewalk. I'm not even a civil engineer, but I can see the difference.

What's your angle, bob? I'm curious as napermom was why you're so set on sending Fry at all costs. Do you have a personal stake?

What's wrong with Bob playing "devil's advocate?" I can't speak for Bob but I think some people need to point out that other people's arguments really aren't valid. Maybe he's out there trying to make you see that your case isn't that strong. Regardless of where Bob lives, I think that based on the information presented above by himself and others, most people would agree that the chances of Fry being classified as walkers is slim to none. I can't believe people would rather their children walk along Rt. 59 (and we all know how teenagers are so careful and don't horse around on their way to school) and risk a potentially dangerous situation like walking next to traffic going 60 mph just so their kids can go to NV. In my opinion, I would rather my child cross RR tracks than walk any distance along Rt. 59 if there are 100's of cars per hour travelling at very high speeds 10 feet from my children.

Who's saying they want kids walking along rte 59? The bridge goes OVER 59, not adjacent to it. IMO, walking OVER a state route is much safer than crossing a busy road like 95th street at a crosswalk.

[concerned]

This bridge goes over route 59 and is connecting bike paths from Frontier Park and the Virgil Gilman Trail. This bridge is to provide a safer route over 59 then crossing it or walking along side it. Why would they spend millions on an unsafe project?

[sleeplessinnpvl]

confused said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

What's wrong with Bob playing "devil's advocate?" I can't speak for Bob but I think some people need to point out that other people's arguments really aren't valid. Maybe he's out there trying to make you see that your case isn't that strong. Regardless of where Bob lives, I think that based on the information presented above by himself and others, most people would agree that the chances of Fry being classified as walkers is slim to none. I can't believe people would rather their children walk along Rt. 59 (and we all know how teenagers are so careful and don't horse around on their way to school) and risk a potentially dangerous situation like walking next to traffic going 60 mph just so their kids can go to NV. In my opinion, I would rather my child cross RR tracks than walk any distance along Rt. 59 if there are 100's of cars per hour travelling at very high speeds 10 feet from my children.

Who's saying they want kids walking along rte 59? The bridge goes OVER 59, not adjacent to it. IMO, walking OVER a state route is much safer than crossing a busy road like 95th street at a crosswalk.

I'm talking about after they get off the bridge. They are then halfway between 103rd and Rt. 59 and they have to get to the school from that point. If there are to be sidewalks that go from the end of the bridge to the back of Neuqua, then I suppose that can be considered safe. But in my opinion, if they have to walk any sort of a short distance along the northbound route of Rt. 59 after they get off the bridge, then it is unsafe. I haven't seen the plans but I don't think the plans call for sidewalks to be connected to the school via some safe back route. It is for people to use Frontier park, bike trails etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know the bridge or Frontier Park that well. I admit walking over Rt. 59 will be much safer. It's after you get off the bridge that worries me.