[Pturner]

Originally Posted by golf2140

the gate keeper

Good one. lol

[djl8412]

Originally Posted by islandgal

Atjack and redwitch -
I agree with you that the gates are a deterrence for the uninformed and do slow down traffic.
However, I have always felt that TV's advertising as a gated community is a misnomer. Because the streets are owned by the county,
there is no way the gates can be completely secured. If the developer had chosen to maintain the streets, our current amenity fees
would probably be doubled.

I have reservations about what our security will be when our population reaches 100,000+.
I moved from a community where the gates were manned by two officers and no one was permitted without the authority of the
property owner. The owner would call in guest's name and guest would pick up a pass at a designated spot to gain access so
I was shocked when I moved to this "gated" community. I would have welcomed the amenity fee for that security.
Hopefully TV's security will increase as the population increases.

I disagree with those who want to no longer have gates whatever their lengths. Something is better than nothing in today's world even in The Bubble.

The PRIMARY GOAL of The Villages is selling homes. When most of us first visited here to consider our future retirement years in FL, we saw all the gates and gate houses and were convinced in was a super secure, "gated community." I believe it's all part of the marketing show. As long as the roadways are publicly maintained and county tax dollars are used for them they have to be accessible to the general public. The gates will not deter those entering for illegal doings. There is camera monitoring at all the gates south of Rte. 466 but I wouldn't count on any of them to provide any photo quality good enough to use as identifying a speficific vehicles or persons. I feel a lot of our amenity monies are used for a lot of show for a lot of dough!

[bike42]

Originally Posted by Karissimo

Re: changes in Villages gates: "These changes are in fact a result of a Federal Law that takes effect on January 1, 2011. This law has been adopted by the Florida legislature, and accepted by the counties of Sumter, Lake, and Marion. In essence, the law states that there must be complete traffic control of all "vehicles" entering and exiting The Villages."
How did this law come to be? Who proposed it? What is the motivation behind it?

There is no such law. There are federal guidelines (MUTCD) for gates, IF they are used at places such as parking lots, military bases, private communities (which TV is not). The guidelines do not require any gates. They do not state how wide the opening must be (if a gate is used).

The Amenity Authority Committee is using the federal guidelines as an excuse to punish bad behavior of a few bicycle/motorcycle/golf cart drivers in a way that will inconvenience everyone, create a hazard for cyclists, and use EVERYONE's amenity money for a totally unnecessary project. If you want to complain, address the AAC at http://www.districtgov.org/aac/aac.aspx

There is a link near the top of the page that will send an email to each of the six committee members: AACboard@districtgov.org

[villages07]

Bike42... Have you or others from the bike club gotten the official stance from the Villages public safety or property management folks? Are they using these guidelines to implement a change they want to do? The expense doesn't seem worth it and this change, requiring golf carts to stop at the gates, is sure to slow down traffic flow.

My reading of the MUTCD and the opinion of a retired FHWA engineer is that the Villages would have a good case to request an exemption from the new guidelines. Our situation here is unique enough not to fall within the intent of the new guidelines.

[bike42]

Villages07-- Mr. Sam Wartinbee, the Director of District Property Management, seems to be trying to figure out ways to make the new gates as safe as possible (new electric eyes, etc.). However, the decision to install the gates has been made by the AAC and Mr. Wartinbee must carry it out.

The bike club president and several members gave statements at the last AAC meeting but the AAC members made it clear that they had made up their minds.
Now it seems all we can do is wait for the changes and see how they actually work out.

I hope everyone will REPORT ANY INCIDENTS that occur at the new gates. If enough problems occur, the gates could easily be cut back to their original length. (There IS NO LAW dictating gate length.)

[golfnut]

so if incidents occur gates can be cut back? and how much are these new gates costing....gn

[villages07]

I thought the AAC only had jurisdiction for amenities North of 466 and that final decisions on amenity changes are made by the central districts. VCCDD for north of 466 (although the cdd board does seem to abide by AAC direction. But, then, the SLCDD (south of 466) has to agree to any Villages wide changes. The SLCDD is controlled by the developer appointed board. Did they go along with the VCCDD/AAC decision?


I can see applying the uniform reflective striping but I don't see the benefit of extending the arms so that all carts, bicycles, scooters, etc have to stop at the gate. I think it will slow traffic flow. And then there is the cost.

Oh well.....

[REDCART]

At Tuesday's POA meeting, someone asked the question about the timeline for upgrading all 63 gates in TV to comply with federal guidelines. Janet Tutt, District Mgr of the Villages responded that while the changes are effective 1/2011. TV plans to upgrade indivual gates on a necessary basis rather than a total gate replacement. I don't recall the specific amount, but total gate upgrades for TV was in the multi-million dollar range. All new gates will of course meet the new standard. Janet defended TV adoption of federal gate standards by saying that people observing a closed gate have a reaonable expection that it's safe to cross. How can you argue with this logic?

George

[bike42]

Originally Posted by gryoung

Janet defended TV adoption of federal gate standards by saying that people observing a closed gate have a reaonable expection that it's safe to cross. How can you argue with this logic?

George

That makes me wonder if Janet Tutt ever uses the multi-modal paths. Carts, bikes and pedestrians never have and should not rely on the gates to let them know if cars are coming. As soon as cars/trucks activate the gate they come charging through, with no regard for what is on the path. It takes a lot more than six seconds to get across the roadways. We always look to make sure there are no cars APPROACHING the gate before we cross.

[barb1191]

Originally Posted by Snowbirdtobe

In Boston we use potholes to slow the traffic and save money on road repairs.

As a North of Boston suburban native, LOVE IT!!! So true.....b

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by bike42

That makes me wonder if Janet Tutt ever uses the multi-modal paths. Carts, bikes and pedestrians never have and should not rely on the gates to let them know if cars are coming. As soon as cars/trucks activate the gate they come charging through, with no regard for what is on the path. It takes a lot more than six seconds to get across the roadways. We always look to make sure there are no cars APPROACHING the gate before we cross.

Most of those of those crossings have a Stop sign and a Yield to vehicles sign, for the carts. A lot of carts disregard both!

[Talk Host]

I have seen cars, motorcycles, bicycles and golf carts go around the end of the gate while it is in the down position.

When that gate is down, it signals to those who are waiting to cross that it is safe to cross. (even after stopping at the stop sign) If they legally and safety begin to cross and suddenly someone flies around the gate, it is an extreme danger. No less than someone crashing a stop sign or red light.

I don't understand the need to go around the gate rather than waiting for it to lift. It takes all of 5 seconds.

[Boudicca]

Guess this change will require us to carry access cards in our carts and cars, unless there is a plan to make passes (like the SUNPASS) available?

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by villages07

I thought the AAC only had jurisdiction for amenities North of 466 and that final decisions on amenity changes are made by the central districts. VCCDD for north of 466 (although the cdd board does seem to abide by AAC direction. But, then, the SLCDD (south of 466) has to agree to any Villages wide changes. The SLCDD is controlled by the developer appointed board. Did they go along with the VCCDD/AAC decision?

Anyone know the answer?

[billethkid]

of society as the old gates. All that is required is the ability to push the red button.

The most cost effective mode is to remove the gates.

The traffic will sort itself out.

But that would not give the appearance to those shopping for a home here of a gated community.

The gate system here affords as much security from the unwanted as the intersection of 301 and 44!!!

If your amenity fees were going up to pay for the new gates...maybe....MAYBE...THE SILENT MAJORITY WOULD WAKE UP!

BTK

btk