1A, B2 Guiding Plan - Implementation Report

Home Browse Search

COUNTY RD E (8-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2008 Guiding Plan principles. These concepts were quite different from each other in terms of the extent and cost of improvements. This was intentionally done to provide a broad range of alternatives to evaluate and discuss. The three alternatives,illustrated in Figures 3,4,and 5,respectively,included: Improved Five-Lane Option—This option was the most similar to current conditions,but included a significant number of access closures to allow for better traffic movement (mobility)along the corridor. Center Median Option—Through the use of a raised center median,this option restricted left turn movements to and from County Road E,but fewer access points needed to be closed. Roundabout Option—This option had similar access restrictions to the Center Median Option,but provided for easier U turns along the corridor with the roundabouts. The roundabouts would offer operational and aesthetic benefits as well. Along with these three access management alternatives,various backage road alternatives were identified to support access to parcels along County Road E and to help mitigate access closures directly along County Road E. All of the alternatives included comparable improvements to better accommodate non- motorized travelers. These improvements included closing gaps in the existing sidewalk system along to County Road E,as well as providing narrowed vehicular lanes to allow for five foot shoulders which bicyclists could use more safely than under current conditions. These options generated a robust and valuable discussion at the second CAC meeting. Differing opinions were revealed in terms of the perceived degree of traffic problems,the desired level of investment for improvements in the corridor, and other issues. Another topic of discussion was the presence of private utility boxes along the project corridor. Concern had been expressed previously that these boxes are not attractive elements in the streetscape,and Bolton&Menk had therefore been tasked with investigating the possibility of burying,consolidating,or otherwise reducing the visual presence of these boxes. At the second CAC meeting,Bolton&Menk staff summarized their investigation and conclusions: • Based on information from the utility companies involved,utility boxes are required to provide access to switches and other controls to allow operation and maintenance of the respective systems. • Burying the utility boxes would not be viable because utility workers must have reasonable access to the relevant wiring and controls. • It may be possible to consolidate utility boxes,but this would require the installation of additional buried cable at substantial cost. • The frequency of utility boxes along County Road E is typical for this type of corridor with buried cable. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 3