My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/26/1991 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
11/26/1991 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:49:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/26/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
nor. 64F'AEE1000 ) <br />see it is a good project - one way traffic going one way and one <br />way traffic going the other way is certainly easier to deal with <br />than four lanes of traffic together, and it is a cheaper project-. <br />Mr. Lambert felt it is totally fiscally irresponsible to say we <br />don't like the twin pairs project, and we don't care if it costs <br />more, we want to widen 512 where it is. He has not heard <br />anything presented by anyone that provides any factual data or <br />engineering support for anything other than the twin pairs. He <br />knows some of the people here are in business on 512, and they <br />don't believe that they will be impacted if the highway is torn <br />up and 4-laned in its present location, but he would tell them <br />that we all might just as well shut our doors while that is going <br />on, and you are looking at 15-18 months for that project to be <br />completed. None of these businesses, his included, depend on <br />through traffic; they are sought out by the people who want their <br />service. <br />Mr. Lambert stated that he is really upset at the thought <br />that people are willing to think of spending more money for a <br />project that isn't as good, especially when nobody knows just how <br />much more that cost will be. This is a county road and a county <br />project, and the county owns the R/W. He realized the County <br />Commission is trying to be considerate of the City, but there <br />comes a time to "fish or cut bait," and he believed we are at` <br />that point. <br />Attorney Dill also stressed the urgency of moving ahead and <br />respectfully requested that the Board take some official action <br />today on the west part of 512 at least. <br />Mr. Lambert noted that we all accept the fact that traffic <br />is growing rapidly on 512, and once the Chesser's Gap development <br />is in there, the traffic will increase tremendously. He pointed <br />out that if you 4 -lane the west part of 512 and not the east, <br />there will be a terrible bottleneck. He felt strongly that it <br />makes no sense to even consider starting this project unless you <br />start at U.S.I - then go west and do the whole thing. You have <br />the money to do it, and anything else is a stop gap patch method <br />that will create more problems than it will alleviate. <br />Councilman Holyk had two comments. As to meeting with the <br />F.E.C. engineer, Mr. Stokely, which their City Engineer also <br />attended, he has seen minutes from that meeting, and very frankly <br />if we have a northern leg, a twin pairs type of alignment, one of <br />the major discussions was that you don't have as much flexibility <br />as you would like to have because that northern leg would have to <br />be shut off if you changed the grade separation even in the least <br />little bit; so, it doesn't give you quite as much flexibility as <br />you might believe. Another thing that has struck him as much <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.