Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 2 01982 <br />BOOK Crn <br />�F62 <br />away from. There will have to be a certain amount of <br />change, but he did not believe that is the basic intent of <br />the Act. <br />Commissioner Fletcher noted we need to do a great deal <br />of study on right-of-way and how flowable our arteries are, <br />and Commissioner Lyons commented that we are aware of the <br />future need for bridges, and he was inclined to believe we <br />should not dot the map with a lot of bridges before we get <br />an idea where we want them. <br />Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that we have quite a <br />few roads in the west of the county indicated with dotted <br />lines, as well as through Sebastian, and he did not believe <br />many of these will come about within 20 years. He noted the <br />Committee is using one' concept in one area and a different <br />one in another, and since the whole objective was to have a <br />map for the ultimate movement of traffic for Indian River <br />County for the long range period of time, we are not being <br />consistent. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if we could indicate in a <br />verbal way that the Commission anticipates additional <br />north -south routes east of U.S.1, and Engineer Davis felt <br />that could be worded within the text of the Transportation <br />Element. <br />Discussion continued re verbal indications as to future <br />bridges, etc., and Administrator Nelson asked if the <br />proposed bridges weren't located where they were because of <br />DOT plans and we actually have rights-of-way and bridgeheads <br />in those areas. <br />Engineer Davis stated there is right-of-way at the <br />three proposed locations and there seem to have been plans <br />in the past. He asked if certain corridors could be <br />designated on the map as "under study." <br />M M r <br />