[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

consulting report interpretation:

RPMs (Reflective Pavement Markers) bad idea due to low weight individual impacts, walking or biking, at the expense of high weight impacts and multiple people injuries where the damage is much more expensive.. .

and maybe, just maybe, only the center line markers are needed for the separation between ongoing carts/bikes. most edges are grass with few if any major mountains cliffs to avoid if one drifts to the right off the road.

but then again, looks like a bit of non safety expense saving behavior because the developer's growth rate is zero to negative during this large scale southern development. .

for-profit operations hate safety and maintenance expenses, because there is no immediate/ measurable/visible financial return measurements, and when there is an accident, insurance is expected to pickup the cost. . so win/win unless the insurance doesn't work due to sheer size and then very low probability bankruptcy may happen. . .

why i dislike business leaders in public affairs. .

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.