11/12/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.__p__arldand except perhaps a strip fronting along Annstrong Boulevard no greater than 100 fed. i~-i~ is ii, Recommendatiom I would reject further consideration of Alternate 4 based upon the fact that it requires a considerable expenditure and still fai~.s ,to provide, the desired, crosstown east/west arterial. In addition, this alternative creates an arterial system incorporating four unnecessary 90 degree tums which will be endured by motorists in perpetuity. Alternate 2 does create a reasonable crosstown arterial at least beginning on Armstrong Boulevard and proceeding eastward across the City. I believe it is objectionable in as much as it encourages arterial traffic to continue through a street which was never intended to function as an arterial street. I do not recommend it for these reasons. The remaining alternatives include maintaining the status quo or pursuing the construction of the project with the alignment as originally proposed and planned for. At the present time there would be sufficient traffic: generated to justify the maintenance costs of this segment of roadway. Furthermore, as future traffic levels increase, the benefits of having this roadway will more than offset the maintenance costs. Finally, the potential for future development threatens the feasibility of constructing this roadway segment or at least threatens to increase its cost. For these reasons~, I recommend rej~.~ status quo alternative and proceeding with the development of the road --un--ffd~ Al ternate'-l~osed. Review Checklist: C~4~ City Engineer City Adminisn'ator City Council