Agenda - Council - 06/13/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Boulevard. This speed differential can be as high as 35 miles per hour when 153/155 _traffic reaches its maximum speed on Armstrong. To mitigate this safety concern, this alternative would include the construction of two additional travel lanes on this segment of Armstrong Boulevard to facilitate the differential traffic speed. This alternative would also require the closure of 154th Lane west of Armstrong to prevent through traffic from moving from 155th down 154th Lane. A variation of this alternative would be the ~onstruction of extra lanes on Armstrong Boulevard with the addition of signalized intersections at 155th. and 153rd Avenues which would eliminate the safety concern associated with the disparate speeds of 153/155 vehicles using Armstrong Boulevard, as they would be protected during their acceleration and deceleration by stopping traffic on Armstrong. The delay caused by the traffic on Armstrong from this alternative would be a negative aspect of this option. Mr. Jankowski reported that there is additional cost associated with the additional alternatives. He recommended directing the consultants to finalize the final plans so the project can go out to bids. He recommended continuing to ~tick with the alignment which will serve the City best which is the double S configuration, With a decrease in speed on the curve closest to Armstrong and that Council authorize ~pproval of the additional cost for evaluation of the additional traffic options. Councilmember Zimmerman agreed with Mr. Jankowski's recommendations. Councilmember Beahen inquired if the residents in the homes in the area have said hnything. Mr. Jankowski replied that they are basically opposed to the alignment. Councilmember Zimmerman suggested that if the award for damages comes up too high, then maybe it would be best to move that alignment to. City Administrator Schroeder stated that this does not include acquisition costs. He ~hought it would come up to about $825,000 ~ that assumes the fair market for land, etc. but does not relocate them. That would increase the cost somewhat but would still be ~'ithin budget. ~2ouncilmember Zimmerman inquired how much it would cost to move it. Mr. Jankowski replied about $50,000 by the time all expenses are paid. Mr. Schroeder suggested you might also want to consider buying the house and pay }elocation to them and we would not sell it until we had the project done so they would know what's happening. Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to ~ecommend that Council authorize Staff to direct consultants to proceed with final plans and --specifications of the following: the double S configuration, with a decrease in speed on the ~Curve closest to Armstrong. Motion carried, Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 74/ Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to recommend that Council authorize approval of the additional cost for evaluation of the :additional traffic options. Road and Bridge Committee/April 11, 1995 Page 2 of 4 I I I