The multi-modal pathway marking issue is complex.
To start with, you can't fix STUPID. Nothing we do will address stupid cart drivers (drunk, blind, speedy, reckless, ill mannered, etc.) but it may make the paths safer for the rest of us.
One correction to a previous post, someone mentioned $300,000 cost per month - that is incorrect. $300,000 is an estimated one-time cost. Yes, "one time" is a misnomer as 6 to 8 years down the road the stripping will need to be replaced. And $300,000 will all have to be paid in Year One but nothing for the next 5 to 7 years. So, maybe $50,000 per year cost spread over 100,000 residents so maybe 50 cents per resident per year - not unreasonable IMHO.
I am not a great believer in coincidences. I am sure it was only by coincidence that our traffic engineer, Kimley-Horn, recommended against side markings and then said “but if you do it anyway, use this very expensive method”. They had no clue it might cause a cost backlash!
Once real costs of these markings became known, the naysayers and penny pinchers came out of the woodwork in droves to fight multi-modal pathway marking.
So here we are today, reviewing a done deal. Is this “Government by the Loudest”? Where were all these concerned naysayers and penny pinchers when their elected officials held open government meetings to get resident input? Where were they when all the resident surveys were taken by resident associations and local media? Where were they when engineering reports were reviewed and discussed at public meetings?
Not interested – that’s where!
Now money is actually being spent. Here they come!
Do you really think their concerns are for resident safety, resident peace of mind or comfort levels? Or do you suspect their late-arising concerns may all be pocketbook related?
Consider the source. Lots of last minute, after-the-fact objections to a well thought out, well executed plan. I’m more than a little suspicious of motivations for the objections..
|