My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1982-03-17 Regular Meeting
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
1980's
>
1982
>
1982-03-17 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:06:56 PM
Creation date
3/21/2025 1:37:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
3/17/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />• Minutes, Regular Meeting, La Porte City Council <br />March 17, 1982, Page 4 <br />The first was the traffic signal at 2nd Street and East Main. <br />Richards stated after numerous traffic counts, volume just <br />did not justify a signal at that intersection. That signal <br />is actually creating a needless delay to motorists on the <br />major street. Based on this, he recommended the signal at <br />2nd and East Main be removed. <br />Hodge: I have talked to the Fire Chief and the Police Chief, <br />and neither one of them have any objections to this light being <br />removed. <br />Richards: The second area involves a short block between 8th <br />Street and 9th Street. There is a pretty bad alinement problem <br />there created by left turn lanes at 146. Right now, both sides <br />of the road are reserved for on-street parking. However, in <br />our many visits down here we have seen almost no parking in <br />this short block. We are asking the Council input on removing <br />this on-street parking for this short block. It would greatly <br />improve traffic operations and could enhance traffic safety. <br />We propose two main travel lanes and a right-turn lane. Our <br />•. final problem area is really the most critical, at the Five <br />Points intersection. We will be replacing the signal equipment <br />but no matter what we try to do to signalize this intersection <br />as it is, our design will be inefficient. There is just no <br />good way to signalize a 5-legged intersection. There is driver <br />confusion at this type of intersection. We have done an acci- <br />dent study and the number occurring is slightly higher than at <br />2nd and 4th, but it's not all that high at this point. The <br />condition is so bad that drivers are adjusting their driving <br />and driving extra safe through this intersection. We do fore- <br />see a problem as the City grows. We propose to make the 5th <br />leg (the San Jacinto leg) one way out-bound from the inter- <br />section to A Street. Traffic would be southeast bound to A <br />Street, beyond A it would be two-way flow just like it is now. <br />Traffic coming north along San Jacinto to Main would be routed <br />along A Street over to Broadway. We would do this with signs <br />and paint stripes and maybe some of the raised jiggle bars. <br />The traffic volumes are not all that great and we feel this <br />would be a very adequate method to control present and future <br />problems. <br />Faris: Who pays for all the additional striping and signs? <br />Richards: I believe that would fall within the budget, so the <br />Highway Department would pay for it. <br />Skelton: Do you know what the annual operating and maintenance <br />• cost for operating the light at 2nd Street? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.