|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 12, 2008 20:56:00 GMT -6
Another simple possible reason why the city of Naperville or the Park District won't claim it a safe way is liability. In the way the world works now, a simple slip means a 5 figure settlement. Bob, Please tell me again where the Park District says that the bridge is unsafe. Also, I don't know who the source was for the information that Ms. Zozulia provided from the City, but as Sleepless suggested, I did some research and here is a quote I found from the city manager. “It is imperative that this bridge gets built as soon as possible in the interest of public safety,” said City Manager Peter Burchard. “The Pedestrian Bridge will provide a vital link between residential properties and commercial and community amenities.” Here is the link to the full article: www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=3540Perhaps the Macom attorneys will now subpoena Ms. Zozulia since she has spoken to all of these sources and quoted them as stating the bridge will provide an unsafe route. I will admit, her sources are not listed. She might be more credible if she listed them. Her 'authority' could be the janitor that was cleaning the office when she called! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 20:56:52 GMT -6
The PD never said it was unsafe the City of Naperville said
and will not become part of a “safe
walk route” to school
If the bridge doesn't remove the hazard status then TG cannot defined as walkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Feb 12, 2008 20:59:09 GMT -6
The PD never said it was unsafe the City of Naperville said and will not become part of a “safe walk route” to school If the bridge doesn't remove the hazard status then TG cannot defined as walkers. -------------- --------- what is a 'safe walk route' to school?? |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 21:00:53 GMT -6
Bob, Please tell me again where the Park District says that the bridge is unsafe. Also, I don't know who the source was for the information that Ms. Zozulia provided from the City, but as Sleepless suggested, I did some research and here is a quote I found from the city manager. “It is imperative that this bridge gets built as soon as possible in the interest of public safety,” said City Manager Peter Burchard. “The Pedestrian Bridge will provide a vital link between residential properties and commercial and community amenities.” Here is the link to the full article: www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=3540Perhaps the Macom attorneys will now subpoena Ms. Zozulia since she has spoken to all of these sources and quoted them as stating the bridge will provide an unsafe route. I have to agree with Bob about the liability thing. I don't believe the City is saying it's unsafe. I believe the SD is proclaiming it not a "safe walk route" as a result of the City's unwillingness to maintain the bridge and the Park District/snow issues. If you can find a way around the snow issue, you may have an argument. Thank you Rural for your input. That is all I have been trying to find out with my previous questions. Beleive me, I am always going to put child safety first. However, I wanted clarification on whether any of the sources that were claimed to have deemed the route unsafe actually did, or was that inferred. There is a big difference, as the memo claimed that the sources all agreed that the bridge was unsafe. |
|
|
|
Post by woody on Feb 12, 2008 21:15:36 GMT -6
reasearching-
I think if you reread the memo you will see not one of the sources claimed it was unsafe, just not a "safe walk route".
City of Naperville – the bridge will not be maintained by the city, and will not become part of a “safe
walk route” to school.
Naperville Park District – The Naperville Park District will assume the operational maintenance which
includes snow removal. The Park District divides its snow removal operations into two categories, priority
and secondary. Priority routes include parking lots and sidewalks adjacent to Park District buildings. The
new bridge will be placed on a secondary route, this means during heavier snow events it may not be
cleared until one or two days after the end of the snowfall.
Illinois Department of Transportation – IDOT will not address the issues regarding the pedestrian
bridge, this is up to the City of Naperville and the local school board.
It appears as if it was meant for many uses, which it will still provide, not just a place for kids to walk to school.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 21:19:02 GMT -6
The PD never said it was unsafe the City of Naperville said and will not become part of a “safe walk route” to school If the bridge doesn't remove the hazard status then TG cannot defined as walkers. Bob, Just to clarify about the PD. I asked the question because you previously stated that the PD declared the bridge an unsafe route. As for the quote that you are referencing, can you please let me know the person that gave that quote from the City of Naperville. I did find a quote from the City Manager (see below): “It is imperative that this bridge gets built as soon as possible in the interest of public safety,” said City Manager Peter Burchard. “The Pedestrian Bridge will provide a vital link between residential properties and commercial and community amenities.” Here is the link to the full article: www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=3540 |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 21:23:33 GMT -6
All I can find of what I said is this. I couldn't find anything of me saying the Park District said it was a unsafe route Not just a bike route. We can call the bridge a bike route too. The City Of Napeville called it NOT A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL. Unless of course they are in on it along with the Naperville Park District. And that came from the memo |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Feb 12, 2008 21:24:04 GMT -6
I have to agree with Bob about the liability thing. I don't believe the City is saying it's unsafe. I believe the SD is proclaiming it not a "safe walk route" as a result of the City's unwillingness to maintain the bridge and the Park District/snow issues. If you can find a way around the snow issue, you may have an argument. Thank you Rural for your input. That is all I have been trying to find out with my previous questions. Beleive me, I am always going to put child safety first. However, I wanted clarification on whether any of the sources that were claimed to have deemed the route unsafe actually did, or was that inferred. There is a big difference, as the memo claimed that the sources all agreed that the bridge was unsafe. Also, I just reread the memo and the language is a little misleading. They are not proclaiming the bridge unsafe, just IL RT 59, and since the bridge will not be maintained (snowplowed?) it cannot be deemed a "safe walk route." Therefore, they are considering Fry non-walkers and must be bussed. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 21:27:49 GMT -6
reasearching- I think if you reread the memo you will see not one of the sources claimed it was unsafe, just not a "safe walk route". City of Naperville – the bridge will not be maintained by the city, and will not become part of a “safe walk route” to school. Naperville Park District – The Naperville Park District will assume the operational maintenance which includes snow removal. The Park District divides its snow removal operations into two categories, priority and secondary. Priority routes include parking lots and sidewalks adjacent to Park District buildings. The new bridge will be placed on a secondary route, this means during heavier snow events it may not be cleared until one or two days after the end of the snowfall. Illinois Department of Transportation – IDOT will not address the issues regarding the pedestrian bridge, this is up to the City of Naperville and the local school board. It appears as if it was meant for many uses, which it will still provide, not just a place for kids to walk to school. Woody, For clarification, I never stated that the sources were quoted as saying the bridge was unsafe. I stated that Ms. Zozulia wrote in her memo that the sources claimed that the bridge route was unsafe. That being said, only one of the sources state that the bridge route is unsafe, and that was the City of Naperville. I am trying to get clarification on who was the source from the City of Naperville that said that. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 21:28:23 GMT -6
The PD said this
Now the memo states this
From this we can understand that various authorities would be CoN, NPD, and IDOT since they are listed underneath.
It seems all three agree that the bridge does not remove the hazard of RT 59.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 21:29:39 GMT -6
Another simple possible reason why the city of Naperville or the Park District won't claim it a safe way is liability. In the way the world works now, a simple slip means a 5 figure settlement. Bob, This is the PD post I was refering to. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 21:29:43 GMT -6
reasearching- I think if you reread the memo you will see not one of the sources claimed it was unsafe, just not a "safe walk route". City of Naperville – the bridge will not be maintained by the city, and will not become part of a “safe walk route” to school. Naperville Park District – The Naperville Park District will assume the operational maintenance which includes snow removal. The Park District divides its snow removal operations into two categories, priority and secondary. Priority routes include parking lots and sidewalks adjacent to Park District buildings. The new bridge will be placed on a secondary route, this means during heavier snow events it may not be cleared until one or two days after the end of the snowfall. Illinois Department of Transportation – IDOT will not address the issues regarding the pedestrian bridge, this is up to the City of Naperville and the local school board. It appears as if it was meant for many uses, which it will still provide, not just a place for kids to walk to school. Woody, For clarification, I never stated that the sources were quoted as saying the bridge was unsafe. I stated that Ms. Zozulia wrote in her memo that the sources claimed that the bridge route was unsafe. That being said, only one of the sources state that the bridge route is unsafe, and that was the City of Naperville. I am trying to get clarification on who was the source from the City of Naperville that said that. Probably should start with Ms Zozulia. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 21:31:12 GMT -6
Another simple possible reason why the city of Naperville or the Park District won't claim it a safe way is liability. In the way the world works now, a simple slip means a 5 figure settlement. Bob, This is the PD post I was refering to. Okay you got me I should not have put the Park District in the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 21:36:31 GMT -6
The PD said this Now the memo states this From this we can understand that various authorities would be CoN, NPD, and IDOT since they are listed underneath. It seems all three agree that the bridge does not remove the hazard of RT 59. Bob, Again there is no direct quote or statement from these entities (with the exception of the City of Naperville- which I am trying to get clarification on) that attributes these entities as stating the bridge route is unsafe. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 21:37:53 GMT -6
Bob, This is the PD post I was refering to. Okay you got me I should not have put the Park District in the quote. No problem Bob. We've all typed faster than we were thinking, myself included. |
|
