12/16/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.~ , - Some businesses depend on use of the street (5th or 7th) by their vehicles:or equipment in their day-to-day operations, since they do e not have adequate on-site room for all their movements. - A number of businesses have loading docks that require trucks to back up from the street, and occasionally protrude into the street during loading or unloading. - Through traffic should not be superimposed on these streets, which were designed and intended for local circulation. The concept evaluated in this present study is different in two important respects from the 1982 proposal: (1) We assumed that Tyinn Street would be extended north from 7th to 5th, thus creating another north-south cross street, between Conger and Seneca. (2) 5th and 7th would need to be reconstructed and widened about ten feet, to accommodate four travel lanes in each direction. This is due to the "side friction" of numerous access points, including back-in loading bays and docks. In essence, two lanes in each direction would be needed for through traffic, and two lanes for local traffic and turning/backing movements. With those assumptions and constraints, the 5th-7th couplet was evaluated as follows: Level of service would be good, since one-way streets provide for efficient e traffic flow. On the other hand, the couplet rates only fair on safety, due to the "side friction" and mix of local and through traffic. Right-of-way cost would probably be lowest of the four options, although it might still be substantial due to the need to widen to four lanes. Construc- tion cost would be high, since both streets would probably have to be com- pletely reconstructed. There would probably be some businesses displaced by the couplet, although less than for the other alternatives. Other business impacts and effects onlocal circulation would be worse than for the other alternatives, for the reasons stated above. (We conducted brief interviews with representatives of those businesses we judged to be most directly impacted. The general responses were 'similar to the concerns they raised in 1982). The couplet has a medium-to-high probability of delaying the process, since a number of businesses would be impacted which have not been included in the present EIS; new public hearings, further study and major revisions or a new EIS could be required. Acceptability and funding are harder to judge. It is our opinion that the State would exhibit considerable resistance to the concept of a llQrr-limited access highway, particularly one through an existing business district with established circulation patterns and access needs. 5th Avenue Alternative This is a slight variation on an alignment studied earlier and rejected by the e CAC. The route was selected to displace the least number of businesses, 4