10/31/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT 3 11985 I B. Policies Utilizing the Existing Canals Boa 62 P4GF 600 ALTERNATIVE #3 Utilize the existing canal right-of-way (generally 30 feet in width) for road purposes. This would require an extensive .agreement with the Drainage District and the enormous cost of culverting many miles of existing canal.. The needs of possible future'canal expansion would have to be considered, as well as maintenance responsibilities and costs. The space gained by culverting existing canals could be limited to pavement and shallow swale improvements only, and would in many instances still require the acquisition of additional amounts of right-of-way. However, the amount of right-of-way to be acquired from private property owners would be reduced. ALTERNATIVE #4 Utilize the existing canal for road purposes by filling it, and digging a replacement canal. This too would require an extensive agreement with the Drainage -District and enormous construction costs, and would still require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Also, the present canal right-of-way location is used as a boundary description for a multitude of parcels. Shifting the location of the. canal could require extensive re -surveying and adjustments in legal property descriptions. The needs of possible future canal expansion would also have to be considered, as well as extensive new culverting construction to provide access to existing residences. This alternative would not reduce the amount of right-of-way to be acquired from private property owners but would shift the burden of right-of-way acquisition. C. Policies Using Design -based Alternatives 1. ALTERNATIVE #5 Boulevarding along the -canals, by acquiring and utilizing right-of-way on both sides of the canal. This would involve the use of one-way streets on either side of the canal, as is currently the situation along 20th Avenue between 26th Street and 16th Street. This type of design would necessitate the acquisition of extensive' road right-of-way on the canal- side of the road and would confine the canal right-of-way, thus limiting possible future canal expansion. Also, extensive culverting would be needed for street crossovers, and the design and construction of intersections would be more costly than standard designs. This alternative would not reduce the amount of right-of-way to be acquired, but would shift the burden of acquisition to ano_ther side of the canal. ALTERNATIVE #6 Apply any number of the previously or subsequently described alternatives and designs to specific roads or specific road segments. Applying different alternatives to different segments of the same road could be infeasible due to problems with right-of-way alignment and transitioning from segment to segment. It could also be difficult to convince property owners of the -fairnes's of applying different policies to different areas served by the same road. Likewise, applying different alternatives to different roads could involve problems of fairness from the viewpoint of affected property owners. Thus, determining what alternative to apply to every collector road or their segments could be time-consuming, and it would leave the County without a coherent policy for an extended period of time. There may be situations in areas that are already developed where the costs of land acquisition and the 14