Laserfiche WebLink
Boulevard. This speed differential can be as high as 35 miles per hour when 153/155 <br />traffic reaches its maximum speed on Armstrong. To mitigate this safety concern, this <br />alternative would include the construction of two additional travel lanes on this segment of <br />Armstrong Boulevard to facilitate the differential traffic speed. This alternative would also <br />require the closure of 154th Lane west of Armstrong to prevent through traffic from <br />moving from 155th down 154th Lane. A variation of this alternative would be the <br />construction of extra lanes on Armstrong Boulevard with the addition of signalized <br />intersections at 155th, and 153rd Avenues which would eliminate the safety concern <br />associated with the disparate speeds of 153/155 vehicles using Armstrong Boulevard, as <br />they would be protected during their acceleration and deceleration by stopping traffic on <br />Armstrong. The delay caused by the traffic on Armstrong from this alternative would be a <br />negative aspect of this option. Mr. Jankowski reported that there is additional cost <br />associated with the additional alternatives. He recommended directing the consultants to <br />finalize the final plans so the project can go out to bids. He recommended continuing to <br />stick with the alignment which will serve the City best which is the double S configuration, <br />with a decrease in speed on the curve closest to Armstrong and that Council authorize <br />approval of the additional cost for evaluation of the additional traffic options. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman agreed with Mr. Jankowski's recommendations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beahen inquired if the residents in the homes in the area have said <br />anything. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski replied that they are basically opposed to the alignment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman suggested that if the award for damages comes up too high, <br />then maybe it would be best to move that alignment to. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder stated that this does not include acquisition costs. He <br />thought it would come up to about $825,000 - that assumes the fair market for land, etc. <br />but does not relocate them. That would increase the cost somewhat but would still be <br />within budget. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired how much it would cost to move it. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski replied about $50,000 by the time all expenses are paid. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder suggested you might also want to consider buying the house and pay <br />relocation to them and we would not sell it until we had the project done so they would <br />know what's happening. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to <br />recommend that Council authorize Staff to direct consultants to proceed with final plans and <br />specifications of the following: the double S configuration, with a decrease in speed on the <br />curve closest to Armstrong. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: <br />None. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to <br />recommend that Council authorize approval of the additional cost for evaluation of the <br />additional traffic options. <br /> <br />Road and Bridge Committee/April 11, 1995 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />