Geography guides Dist. 204 boundaries

[refbasics]

forthekids said:

macy said:

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.

--------------
Tall Grass, Signature Crossing(the closest part to NVHS), Penncross Knoll, Remington Townhomes- nothing is even 1.5 miles away from scullen MS- the farthest southeastern part of the entire TG, etc. development near SR 59 & 103 (just west of wheatland). You do realize no one in the Fry school area gets a bus to scullen MS?? Everybody walks, rides bikes, or gets a car ride.

[forthekids]

refbasics said:

forthekids said:

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.

--------------
Tall Grass, Signature Crossing(the closest part to NVHS), Penncross Knoll, Remington Townhomes- nothing is even 1.5 miles away from scullen MS- the farthest southeastern part of the entire TG, etc. development near SR 59 & 103 (just west of wheatland). You do realize no one in the Fry school area gets a bus to scullen MS?? Everybody walks, rides bikes, or gets a car ride.

NVHS is farther from Fry than Scullen. I don't get your point. No one from Fry walks to NVHS because it is unsafe to do so. The bridge does not make it any safer, hence, Fry still gets bussed.

[refbasics]

bob said:

confused said:

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.

---------

bridge 'not maintained?'- won't there be snow/ice buildup on it?... with cars driving underneath it?... that sounds dangerous.. so no one is maintaining it?.. that doesn't sound plausible!.. or, i won't be driving underneath it!

[refbasics]

macy said:

bob said:

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.

-----------------

There aren't any for the NVHS or Gold.. just up thru MS.

naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=283

[sleeplessinnpvl]

forthekids said:

refbasics said:

--------------
Tall Grass, Signature Crossing(the closest part to NVHS), Penncross Knoll, Remington Townhomes- nothing is even 1.5 miles away from scullen MS- the farthest southeastern part of the entire TG, etc. development near SR 59 & 103 (just west of wheatland). You do realize no one in the Fry school area gets a bus to scullen MS?? Everybody walks, rides bikes, or gets a car ride.

NVHS is farther from Fry than Scullen. I don't get your point. No one from Fry walks to NVHS because it is unsafe to do so. The bridge does not make it any safer, hence, Fry still gets bussed.

I now see why the board sent "The Bridge" letter home in everyone's backpacks. This obviously is a huge issue for some people from Fry. They don't seem to be happy with the answer they have gotten and continue to, IMO, beat a dead horse. Maybe they need to show up and show the board why the Fry community is right about being walkers and the school board is wrong about this. (I'm sure that will go over well). If you feel you can convince them on Tuesday, then you have every right to try. But you better have some facts behind you or they won't listen to you. (Actually, given their track record, they probably won't listen to you even if you DO have facts)

[refbasics]

forthekids said:

refbasics said:

--------------
Tall Grass, Signature Crossing(the closest part to NVHS), Penncross Knoll, Remington Townhomes- nothing is even 1.5 miles away from scullen MS- the farthest southeastern part of the entire TG, etc. development near SR 59 & 103 (just west of wheatland). You do realize no one in the Fry school area gets a bus to scullen MS?? Everybody walks, rides bikes, or gets a car ride.

NVHS is farther from Fry than Scullen. I don't get your point. No one from Fry walks to NVHS because it is unsafe to do so. The bridge does not make it any safer, hence, Fry still gets bussed.

----------

"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).
--------

are you saying the kids are 1.5 miles from the bridge??

[refbasics]

macy said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

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 am mystified why this is being done also.. and i think the capacity of builta is 1075 not 850- wasn't that on those very first maps that listed all the schools and their capacities back in Jan 2006?? i was surprised it was so big... or was that some kind of 'typo'?

[macy]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

macy said:

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.

I don't get it either. I do understand sending some of the kids that are very close to Springbrook, maybe Kinloch but sending 201 more kids leaves Springbrook at 94% to capacity while leaving Builta at around 63%.

Seems kinda bizarre to me.

[macy]

refbasics said:

macy said:

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.

-----------------

There aren't any for the NVHS or Gold.. just up thru MS.

naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=283

Exactly!

[204family]

macy said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

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.

I don't get it either. I do understand sending some of the kids that are very close to Springbrook, maybe Kinloch but sending 201 more kids leaves Springbrook at 94% to capacity while leaving Builta at around 63%.

Seems kinda bizarre to me.

There was something in the Herald about making room in Builta for more additional growth in bolingbrook.

[proschool]

204family said:

macy said:

I don't get it either. I do understand sending some of the kids that are very close to Springbrook, maybe Kinloch but sending 201 more kids leaves Springbrook at 94% to capacity while leaving Builta at around 63%.

Seems kinda bizarre to me.

There was something in the Herald about making room in Builta for more additional growth in bolingbrook.

I can't help but to think that this will have something to do with Owen.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

proschool said:

204family said:

There was something in the Herald about making room in Builta for more additional growth in bolingbrook.

I can't help but to think that this will have something to do with Owen.

Based on the current boundaries, I can't see how adding kids to Springbrook would have something to do with Owen. You can't swap Owen with Springbrook because that would mean SB would have to go to Metea so Owen can go to NV? Now that would be insane. Plus the Owen student population would not match SB's.

[momof156graders]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

forthekids said:

NVHS is farther from Fry than Scullen. I don't get your point. No one from Fry walks to NVHS because it is unsafe to do so. The bridge does not make it any safer, hence, Fry still gets bussed.

I now see why the board sent "The Bridge" letter home in everyone's backpacks. This obviously is a huge issue for some people from Fry. They don't seem to be happy with the answer they have gotten and continue to, IMO, beat a dead horse. Maybe they need to show up and show the board why the Fry community is right about being walkers and the school board is wrong about this. (I'm sure that will go over well). If you feel you can convince them on Tuesday, then you have every right to try. But you better have some facts behind you or they won't listen to you. (Actually, given their track record, they probably won't listen to you even if you DO have facts)

I just don't understand why crossing 95th street is okay, and considered a safe walk to school, but walking over a bridge (that will be maintained better than most residential sidewalks) without ever crossing a street is not safe......... .

Does anyone know how to post a picture? When I tried I just got the word image. Thanks.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

momof156graders said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I now see why the board sent "The Bridge" letter home in everyone's backpacks. This obviously is a huge issue for some people from Fry. They don't seem to be happy with the answer they have gotten and continue to, IMO, beat a dead horse. Maybe they need to show up and show the board why the Fry community is right about being walkers and the school board is wrong about this. (I'm sure that will go over well). If you feel you can convince them on Tuesday, then you have every right to try. But you better have some facts behind you or they won't listen to you. (Actually, given their track record, they probably won't listen to you even if you DO have facts)

I just don't understand why crossing 95th street is okay, and considered a safe walk to school, but walking over a bridge (that will be maintained better than most residential sidewalks) without ever crossing a street is not safe......... .

Does anyone know how to post a picture? When I tried I just got the word image. Thanks.

I would make it a point to question the board on that. I really hope they address this issue on Tuesday because it doesn't seem like the letter was enough to satisfy people.

[newbie]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

momof156graders said:

I just don't understand why crossing 95th street is okay, and considered a safe walk to school, but walking over a bridge (that will be maintained better than most residential sidewalks) without ever crossing a street is not safe......... .

Does anyone know how to post a picture? When I tried I just got the word image. Thanks.

I would make it a point to question the board on that. I really hope they address this issue on Tuesday because it doesn't seem like the letter was enough to satisfy people.

Eagledad was correct about the letter.

It did more to say "screw you Tall Grass" than anything else!