My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/18/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/18/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:03:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/18/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
APPROVAL OF KINGS HWY. STUDY 13ETLVEEN_ SR60_ &_ OSLO _ROAD <br />Public Works Director Davis made the staff presentation: <br />TO: James E. Chandler, <br />County Administrator <br />THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. <br />Public Works Director / <br />FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E., <br />Capital Projects Manager <br />SUBJECT: Approval of Kings Highway (58th Avenue) Study <br />between SR 60 and Oslo Road <br />DATE: December 10, 1990 FILE: 58th.agn <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />Gee & Jensen, under contract with Indian River County, has <br />completed the corridor improvement study for Kings Highway <br />between SR60 and Oslo Road. <br />The attached report provides three alternate alignments. <br />The width of additional right-of-way that the County must <br />acquire to implement improvements, will be determined by <br />which alignment is selected. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />The following alternatives are presented in the report: <br />Alternate "A" promotes a four lane divided section that is <br />basically using the current power pole alignment as *,the <br />center line of the roadway. The intersection of SR60 and <br />58th Avenue remains in the same position, while the <br />alignment going southward, shifts using reverse curves to <br />the west to place the power poles in the median. While <br />saving the expense of relocating the power poles and <br />possible the use of guardrail, Alternate "A" requires <br />considerably more right-of-way. The cost of the additional <br />right-of-way could easily displace the savings=- in <br />construction costs. The main advantage of this alternative <br />is that it can easily be expanded. Since the projected need <br />for six lanes should not be until well beyond the design <br />year, the ease of expansion loses its importance. In <br />addition to this, placing the power poles in the median <br />would create an unsafe condition. <br />Alternate "B" promotes <br />lane) that is positions <br />lanes. This alternate w <br />roadway alignment to th <br />controlled by providing <br />the existing power poles <br />This alignment will work <br />Road. <br />a three lan <br />d to allow <br />ill not requ <br />e west. <br />a 30' clear <br />and the sou <br />well connec <br />e section (middle turn <br />for expansion of future <br />ire the shifting of the <br />The alignment will be <br />recovery area between <br />thbound edge of travel. <br />ting to SR60 and to Oslo <br />Alternate "B" does not increase the capacity of the road <br />immediately. Its ultimate capacity is equal to the initial <br />capacity of Alternatives "A" and "B". <br />Alternate "C" promotes a four lane section between the power <br />poles and the Lateral "B" canal. The northbound two lanes <br />will be located along the same alignment as the existing <br />roadway, This alignment uses the Right-of-way the most <br />efficiently and will be the least disruptive in maintaining <br />67 <br />DEC IS 1990 BO��� ' fou:tr Q d <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.