|
|
Post by concerned on Feb 13, 2008 19:50:21 GMT -6
How would WE and Heatherstone be considered walkers?
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 13, 2008 20:07:43 GMT -6
The only reason springbrook Springbrook area is brought up as an alternative to Fry going to WVHS is because they are on a bus now. Fry should be considered walkers. Welch is considered walkers, so springbrook although not ideal, would not create such a great difference in their transportation times. Ideally SB, Welch, Fry, Peterson, and all the other close schools fighting to stay should. The location of the school does not allow for that. If someone has to change, then the group already on the buss who would see the least increase would be my suggestion. If Fry (as a whole) is considered walkers (by you, not by me), than by that definition, WE and Heatherstone should be considered walkers. The bridge does not a walker make. Head of IDOT thinks it meets the safe passage to school criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Feb 13, 2008 20:07:50 GMT -6
How would WE and Heatherstone be considered walkers? The same way that Tall Grass would be. There are homes in both those developments that are the same distance from NV as some homes in Tall Grass. The bridge does not make anyone a walker! Does anyone from Fry walk to NVHS now? No. The same holds true for WE and Heatherstone. Therefore, if people say that Fry should go to NVHS because they are so close to NVHS than the same holds true for both WE and Heatherstone. |
|
|
|
Post by confused on Feb 13, 2008 20:10:03 GMT -6
The only reason springbrook Springbrook area is brought up as an alternative to Fry going to WVHS is because they are on a bus now. Fry should be considered walkers. Welch is considered walkers, so springbrook although not ideal, would not create such a great difference in their transportation times. Ideally SB, Welch, Fry, Peterson, and all the other close schools fighting to stay should. The location of the school does not allow for that. If someone has to change, then the group already on the buss who would see the least increase would be my suggestion. If Fry (as a whole) is considered walkers (by you, not by me), than by that definition, WE and Heatherstone should be considered walkers. The bridge does not a walker make. The bridge does a walker make, so says IDOT. |
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Feb 13, 2008 20:11:19 GMT -6
If Fry (as a whole) is considered walkers (by you, not by me), than by that definition, WE and Heatherstone should be considered walkers. The bridge does not a walker make. Head of IDOT thinks it meets the safe passage to school criteria. The head of IDOT is not the one that gets to make that decision. As I've said many times on this board, the bridge is nothing more than a reason to justify those in Tall Grass' opinions that they are walkers. Those kids in the north and northwest portions of Tall Grass are not going to walk all the way down to the bridge to cross over (those same kids are probably more than 1.5 miles from the bridge, anyway). That would create the very unsafe situation that needs to be avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 13, 2008 20:15:19 GMT -6
Head of IDOT thinks it meets the safe passage to school criteria. The head of IDOT is not the one that gets to make that decision. As I've said many times on this board, the bridge is nothing more than a reason to justify those in Tall Grass' opinions that they are walkers. Those kids in the north and northwest portions of Tall Grass are not going to walk all the way down to the bridge to cross over (those same kids are probably more than 1.5 miles from the bridge, anyway). That would create the very unsafe situation that needs to be avoided. Your opinion... Not mine, not IDOT's, nor the city of Naperville, etc. Let's just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 13, 2008 20:16:32 GMT -6
If Fry (as a whole) is considered walkers (by you, not by me), than by that definition, WE and Heatherstone should be considered walkers. The bridge does not a walker make. The bridge does a walker make, so says IDOT. What do you have that corroborates that statement? |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 13, 2008 20:20:09 GMT -6
The only reason springbrook Springbrook area is brought up as an alternative to Fry going to WVHS is because they are on a bus now. Fry should be considered walkers. Welch is considered walkers, so springbrook although not ideal, would not create such a great difference in their transportation times. Ideally SB, Welch, Fry, Peterson, and all the other close schools fighting to stay should. The location of the school does not allow for that. If someone has to change, then the group already on the buss who would see the least increase would be my suggestion. This may have been a great proposal a few days ago. But take a look at the new ES boundary map. They just added 201 kids from the Builta ES to Springbrook. Now Springbrook's boundary is almost as far south as Fry's. Not quite, but almost. And when you figure how east they are, then if the Fry commute will currently be 33 minutes on average, think what that far southeast corner of Springbrook's commute would be. You are just swapping one school's pain for another's. I understand your frustration and pinning your hopes on this proposal. However, I think that if we are to convince the board that their proposal is wrong, we need to tweak it in the problem areas, not totally revamp it. You try to argue this proposal but it is so different from the proposed one, and the board will just tune you out. There's no way they would consider something so different and be in the same position they were in 2 years ago with 10 different proposals to consider. But if you suggest something that will help Owen or Watts or Petersen...then you might have a chance of being heard. |
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Feb 13, 2008 20:29:04 GMT -6
The head of IDOT is not the one that gets to make that decision. As I've said many times on this board, the bridge is nothing more than a reason to justify those in Tall Grass' opinions that they are walkers. Those kids in the north and northwest portions of Tall Grass are not going to walk all the way down to the bridge to cross over (those same kids are probably more than 1.5 miles from the bridge, anyway). That would create the very unsafe situation that needs to be avoided. Your opinion... Not mine, not IDOT's, nor the city of Naperville, etc. Let's just agree to disagree. I am happy to do so. I just think that Fry's reasoning is flawed and very transparent. They just want to stay at Neuqua and will use any argument they can. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 13, 2008 20:33:35 GMT -6
Your opinion... Not mine, not IDOT's, nor the city of Naperville, etc. Let's just agree to disagree. I am happy to do so. I just think that Fry's reasoning is flawed and very transparent. They just want to stay at Neuqua and will use any argument they can. As I stated before, we agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, but believe it to be incorrect. Let's stop the tit for tat. We disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 13, 2008 20:34:16 GMT -6
Your opinion... Not mine, not IDOT's, nor the city of Naperville, etc. Let's just agree to disagree. I am happy to do so. I just think that Fry's reasoning is flawed and very transparent. They just want to stay at Neuqua and will use any argument they can. Anyone can use whatever argument they want... it just has to hold water and withstand scrutiny. If it's criteria applied to one area, it should be applied to all areas without exceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 13, 2008 20:35:53 GMT -6
If Fry (as a whole) is considered walkers (by you, not by me), than by that definition, WE and Heatherstone should be considered walkers. The bridge does not a walker make. The bridge does a walker make, so says IDOT. Illinois Department of Transportation – IDOT will not address the issues regarding the pedestrianbridge, this is up to the City of Naperville and the local school board. City of Naperville – the bridge will not be maintained by the city, and will not become part of a “safe walk route” to school. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 13, 2008 20:37:36 GMT -6
The only reason springbrook Springbrook area is brought up as an alternative to Fry going to WVHS is because they are on a bus now. Fry should be considered walkers. Welch is considered walkers, so springbrook although not ideal, would not create such a great difference in their transportation times. Ideally SB, Welch, Fry, Peterson, and all the other close schools fighting to stay should. The location of the school does not allow for that. If someone has to change, then the group already on the buss who would see the least increase would be my suggestion. This may have been a great proposal a few days ago. But take a look at the new ES boundary map. They just added 201 kids from the Builta ES to Springbrook. Now Springbrook's boundary is almost as far south as Fry's. Not quite, but almost. And when you figure how east they are, then if the Fry commute will currently be 33 minutes on average, think what that far southeast corner of Springbrook's commute would be. You are just swapping one school's pain for another's. I understand your frustration and pinning your hopes on this proposal. However, I think that if we are to convince the board that their proposal is wrong, we need to tweak it in the problem areas, not totally revamp it. You try to argue this proposal but it is so different from the proposed one, and the board will just tune you out. There's no way they would consider something so different and be in the same position they were in 2 years ago with 10 different proposals to consider. But if you suggest something that will help Owen or Watts or Petersen...then you might have a chance of being heard. Sleepless, You bring up an interesting point. I don't understand the logic of pulling 201 kids out of Builta (taking them from 707 today's enrollment to 506). Why leave an elementary school WELL below capacity (850) and put Spring Brook (today's enrollment 660 to 861) at 861 with a capacity of 950? As well, the Timber Creek subdivision has 157 kids and is south of 95th. I believe the balance of the 201 comes from Kinloch which is north of 95th. I think the proposal mom156 speaks to is still very valid considering this funky reassignment. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 13, 2008 20:38:46 GMT -6
The bridge does a walker make, so says IDOT. Illinois Department of Transportation – IDOT will not address the issues regarding the pedestrianbridge, this is up to the City of Naperville and the local school board. City of Naperville – the bridge will not be maintained by the city, and will not become part of a “safe walk route” to school. FYI, can someone show me how to see the city of Naperville safe walk routes to high school? I can't seem to find them... I don't think the provide such a route. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 13, 2008 20:41:47 GMT -6
This may have been a great proposal a few days ago. But take a look at the new ES boundary map. They just added 201 kids from the Builta ES to Springbrook. Now Springbrook's boundary is almost as far south as Fry's. Not quite, but almost. And when you figure how east they are, then if the Fry commute will currently be 33 minutes on average, think what that far southeast corner of Springbrook's commute would be. You are just swapping one school's pain for another's. I understand your frustration and pinning your hopes on this proposal. However, I think that if we are to convince the board that their proposal is wrong, we need to tweak it in the problem areas, not totally revamp it. You try to argue this proposal but it is so different from the proposed one, and the board will just tune you out. There's no way they would consider something so different and be in the same position they were in 2 years ago with 10 different proposals to consider. But if you suggest something that will help Owen or Watts or Petersen...then you might have a chance of being heard. Sleepless, You bring up an interesting point. I don't understand the logic of pulling 201 kids out of Builta (taking them from 707 today's enrollment to 506). Why leave an elementary school WELL below capacity (850) and put Spring Brook (today's enrollment 660 to 861) at 861 with a capacity of 950? As well, the Timber Creek subdivision has 157 kids and is south of 95th. I believe the balance of the 201 comes from Kinloch which is north of 95th. I think the proposal mom156 speaks to is still very valid considering this funky reassignment. I have no idea why they are pulling kids from there. Obviously other than the physical boundary that will now separate SB from Builta...that part makes sense, but I don't know where they are going to put all those kids. |
|
