12/5/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 821 PAGE presented graphs showing the design of the two intersections, and noted that there are very few commercial uses fronting the short section of the existing CR -512 roadway. We are taking measures to buffer the mobile home park in that area as we have 100 feet of r/w and 76 feet of green area to work with. We could build a masonry wall or a vegetation type buffering, which has worked well in other areas of the county, particularly along Indian River Boulevard. Commissioner Bird wanted to make it clear that the County has stuck by the concept of the split pair design because it is the most cost effective way and the safest way to get traffic off of CR -512 onto U.S. #1, and not just because we bought the railroad right-of-way several years ago. County Engineer Roger Cain explained how the updated cost estimates on the project made the split pair design the most cost effective, the major reason being that it follows the existing CR -512 alignment most of the way. He pointed out that there will have to be a crossing expansion regardless of which crossing is used. Dr. Henry Fischer disagreed that there is just limited commercial in that short stretch of CR -512 before it reaches U.S. #1. He emphasized that there are 23 retail businesses right on CR -512 west of the railroad tracks. Vice Chairman Oberbeck felt those property owners along CR -512 would be happy to sell that r/w so that the road could be expanded along there rather than being split, but Director Davis defended his position of the split pair being the most cost effective design. Dr. Fischer felt that nobody will buy the argument that you can build two roads cheaper than just one, but Director Davis stressed that we actually are building only one 2 -lane road. He explained that widening CR -512 would be more expensive. There is a difference of approximately $800,000 between the two alternatives. 10 - M