My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/20/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
10/20/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:34:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/20/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OCT 2 01992 w 51 r> cjr 768. <br />C. Traffic Control: -The intersection o 42nd Avenge/At~iant c Blvd and SR 60 <br />is currently signalized with a two-phase semi -actuated controller. Appar- <br />ently, the intersection was signalized by F.D X.T. when State Road 60 was <br />improved during the late 19601x, involving the redesign of the five -point <br />intersection at 43rd Avenue, -in anticipation of heavy traffic volumes orig- <br />inating from the airport and central business district via Atlantic Boulevard. <br />Signalization analysis based upon warrants presented in the Manual on Uniform <br />Traffic Control Devices (USDOT, 1976) was conducted.. Attachment # 2 compares <br />existing to minimum warrant volumes necessary for signalization. As you will <br />note, existing volumes are insufficient (53% of.warrant volume) to justify <br />signalization. <br />II. Alternatives <br />A. Maintain signalization at 42nd Avenue/Atlantic Boulevard and State Road 60; <br />B. Maintain signalization and coordinate with the system at 43rd Avenue and <br />State Raod 60; or <br />C. Remove signalization. _ <br />III. Recommendation <br />Alternative "C", signal removal, is recommended since signalization warrants <br />are not satisfied and since Atlantic Boulevard is not part of the arterial <br />nor collector system. <br />Several benefits may result: <br />_ 1. Reduction of fuel consumption for vehicles due to elimination of <br />intersectional delay; <br />2. Reduction of electricity and maintenance costs of signalization to the <br />City of Vero Beach; <br />3. Potential reduction of rear -end type collisions (2 of the 6 accidents <br />which have occurred were of this type); and <br />4. Accident frequency is not anticipated to increase. <br />Removal of a traffic signal must involve a procedure to provide.a safe <br />transition in the change of a traffic control device. <br />Signal Removal Procedure: <br />1. Notify press of scheduled change. <br />2. Place signal into a flashing mode for 30 days <br />3. Install STOP signs and STOP AHEAD signs'on-the approaches required <br />to stop. <br />4. Bag the signal heads for 30 days. <br />S. Monitor the occurance of accidents throughout the interim period <br />(60 days). <br />6. Remove signal hardware. <br />7. Maintain normal accident sw veillance. <br />In addition, a significant expansion- in the sight 7dLstarice = 4va.:ilable (ii9 <br />accordance with FDOT standards) at the 42nd Aveniaerapparoaches.is.recommended <br />to provide safer crossing and left -turn maneuvers.' <br />Commissioner Fletcher reported that the business people <br />in the area fear if the signal at 42nd Avnue is removed, <br />there will be problems. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt that the 42nd Street signal <br />actually is a responsibility of the City of Vero Beach. <br />P.M. <br />Commissioner Lyons left the meeting at 5:25 o'clock <br />Public Works Director Davis reviewed their previous <br />analysis of this situation, noting that a new MacDonald's is <br />120 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.