Side Striping Multi-Modal Paths
 

“Comments from numerous, previously silent, residents that in summary say the cost is too high, not justified, and the need hasn’t been demonstrated,” Project Wide Advisory Committee Chairman and CDD 6 Supervisor Peter Moeller said in an email to fellow supervisors.

I guess the $300,000 cost has gotten some serious attention.

Ouch! I just read the article on the other on-line new source. Where have these people been? If the folks compaining about cost of the thermoplastic had attened the meeting on Monday, they would understand why this is probably a better option. More visable, better reflectivity, and longer lasting.

I think whatever can be done to make the multimodal paths safer is worth the cost. Three dolllars per resident is not expensive. I'll throw in $4.00 if it will get the stripe down.

Let's see what position the POA takes now...

After the decision, I've started looking at the sidelines on the streets; if the streets are newer and the sidelines haven't been painted over and over, they are nice looking; if they have been painted over and over - THEY ARE UGLY and have a pretty good raised surface on them. We do not need these sidelines.

Over 70,000 miles on two carts. I still don't see a problem with the paths. The folks crying should have been here before they widened the cart paths. Don't waste the money.

The stripping being discussed would be about the thickness of three sheets of paper. I doubt this would even be noticed in a cart, bike or walking. One of the drawbacks of the thermoplastic is when being replaced, it would need to be removed. One would not just put down another layer on top of the old.

However, thermoplastic will last much longer than paint and may be less expensive in the long term. This is what the district was commissioned to determine as the next step.

All I know for sure is a consulting engineer recommend not to do this stripping. If you weren't going to take the expert advise, why hire the engineer in the first place?

This doesn't make sense to me.

I think if stripping is done properly then there is no problem in it. What do you have to say about it?

Have to agree with golf2140 and the engineering firm that recommended not to stripe. If your vision is that bad that u can't see the path at night upgrade the headlights on your cart or better yet Don't drive at night. If you're that drunk that u can't see the path at night. Guess What!!

Bottom line you Can't legislate away stupidity... And stripes won't make it go away either!

I would gladly contribute an extra $1.00 per year from our household. What a novel idea - legislatures spending my tax dollars on something I can see.

use the money where it is needed. as an example take a ride on the path between panama and rio grande.

This is another one of those hasty decisions and if an engineer did not recommend it apparently one not well thought out. A $100, 000 to replace trees to $300, 000 for stripping pathways another $$...pretty soon your talking about serious money . I approached the POA explaining why stripping was not the saving grace issue and that their were several concerns not being addressed invoking an Occam's Razor approach. Never got a response?

Once that work is done it is going to require regular maintenance and more $$$ one can only hope it does help

It is only a better option to those who think they know more than traffic and public safety engineers and experts. Where were "those" in favor of striping when the safety experts said that the striping would not improve safety? In fact they went on to say that at least the center striping would make the MMPs more dangerous, not safer.

Total waste of money. It will do nothing. A center lane strip would be more helpful. Expect your monthly fees to go up!

What some residents will have to learn is that there is not an endless supply of money to keep adding expenses to a budget that for all practical purposes has a fixed source (you and me and our annual contribution).

The attitude of some stating it is only $4 more per month per person is seriously flawed thinking. It is absolutely an option.....as long as residents understand to free up $300,000 from the budgeted amount to do striping of cart paths then something else amounting to $300,000 has to be deleted from the budget. If not then there will be an increase in amenity or what ever fees contribute to the funding.

The single biggest threat to TV life style remaining as what we all bought into is run away expenses with increasing resident fees to accomodate the whims of some number of residents.

I have personally been involved with transition teams shifting ownership from developers to residents. The developer, like it or not has a budget discipline. They also have many expenses that they subsidize that go away when they do. Once the developer is out of the picture then residents find "things" they would like to have added, improved, made bigger, prettier and on and on.
Anything is possible. As long as residents understand there is only a fixed amount of money available (from the residents). Adding a projedt not bugeted means taking something else away OR raise fees. Some delude themselves into having a special assessment for their favorite project ending up with the normal fees plus the assessment (which may go away after some specified time period...but usuallly do not).

I take the time to spell out my views on the subject because far too many people think a community can absorb all the costs. The can....when the fees are increased.

How about fees going from the roughly $300 per month we pay now to double that amount? No way that could happen here in TV? Yes it can and will if we do not DEMAND a fiscal financial responsibility. I have lived through a doubling of annual fees after a departing developer in the past.

Maybe while TV developer is still involved we might not experience any assessment or increases.....maybe.....$300,000 is a lot of money that has to come from some place.

If it were 100% resident funded are you willing to make monthly payments to have it done? If not then you better make yourself heard.

The silent majority can ONLY LOSE!!

I vote no striping. The end does not justify the a $300,000 expenditure or $30,000 either! Just drive the paths as some of us have for the last 12-20 years of being here. Don't get sucked into an emotional sales job!

The striping will help a lot, drunk drivers can follow the line in the dark and fog, thats what we used them for when we were teens. Less trees getting hit :icon_twisted: