7/24/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Director Davis explained that the State has done an extensive study on U.S.I. in the 3 county area, and it recom- mended improvement through the whole Indian River County area and discussed converting it to 6 lanes. We have been waiting for some implementation of that study. Chairman Eggert believed that 5 million for Indian River Boulevard will help U.S.I. Discussion continued as to the various priorities, acquisi- tion of right-of-way, etc., and Commissioner Scurlock commented that possibly we should take all this money and just use it to 4 lane SR 60 rather than do all these other projects. Director Davis felt we need to give DOT some strong direc- tion to take a hard look at U.S.I. and if the Lachner Report is a report that is going to predict the destiny of U.S.I in the 3 -county area, that is fine, let's move on with it, but if it is not, let's break Indian River County out of the 3 -county study. Their thought was to address U.S.I with the first priority being. the closed loop system and the Boulevard connecting it back to U.S.I in the northern section. Mr. Yesbeck pointed out to the Board that there are a number of different programs that are just becoming available. Back in 1988, there was an amendment for advanced acquisition of R/W. That basically has started a new process in the Department that matches well with what Director Davis has put together on land banking R/W along U.S.I. There is a program they are involved with where they are going ahead and trying to put together what they call a corridor report to get something like an approved master plan of what, in this case, the county wants U.S.I. to look like, and then they will work cooperatively towards getting the R/W necessary to meet this ultimate road. Commissioner Scurlock thought Director Davis said we had a plan that did that, and Mr. Yesbeck believed that plan is a couple years old, and they, as a Department, need -to go back and get that study out. 23 �I OK OU F'A6r, 6 yj JUL 24 190