BridgeZilla is a Monster
Appearance and Appropriateness:
Argument for bridge based on discredited traffic theories:
Bridge rammed down our throats like in the bad old days:
Councilman Eddy’s Misinformation Campaign
Safety Issues
Eddy says Red Bridge is a “dangerous and treacherous road” and “We’ve had people die on Red Bridge”. He doesn’t mention that there have been more fatalities on other (wider) local roads. He doesn’t mention that fatalities on Red Bridge have not been in the project area, and were due to the City’s negligence. Examples: Failure to install guardrails over the creek at Askew led to a fatality about 15 years ago. Just two months ago, the City settled a wrongful death suit because of their negligence after a water main broke, leading to a fatality near Washington Street in December 2004. The road was not at fault. Our City’s failure to maintain our infrastructure is to blame. Chuck Eddy isn’t alone in thinking the curves on Red Bridge are dangerous, and although they are not perfect, generally speaking, a ‘curvilinear alignment’ slows traffic down and focuses the attention of drivers, thus addressing the two greatest factors that contribute to serious accidents: speeding and driver inattention. If the bridge and curves were so dangerous, how come the Traffic Department has a record of zero accident fatalities there?
Traffic Flow
Eddy says that the traffic count dictates the road. If that were the case, why should a big bridge be put in at a time when traffic counts show freeway bypass traffic on the decline? Moreover, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has recognized for years now that the usage of a road depends on what kind of road it is. Though Eddy “finds that very difficult to believe”, the new bridge will bring more traffic, some of which will be tractor-trailer rigs that can’t use the road now. Building bigger roads and bridges to meet expected future capacity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Big roads draw bigger traffic. It’s a never-ending cycle. (See attached articles.)
Age and Condition of the Existing Bridge
Eddy says over and over again that it’s a 70-year-old bridge, and he has been caught saying that he’s afraid it’s going to fall into the river. He never mentions in 1982 the bridge received a major reinforcement and reconstruction job. The bridge is structurally sound.
Community Participation in the Planning Process
Eddy says that the project has been vetted numerous times throughout the community. The plan was cooked up somewhere not open to public view, and then presented as a done deal from the day that it was first announced in the Kansas City Star. Since that time, despite overwhelming opposition at the previous public meetings, the design of the bridge remains unchanged, and just as offensive as ever to neighborhood values and to the natural, historic character of the Minor Park area. The only concession has been to add some decorations to make the new bridge look like the freeway overpasses in the Grandview Triangle. But will there even be enough funds to add them? Not yet.
Standards & Flexibility
Eddy says that the old bridge rates only a 2 on a scale of 10 in the bridge inspection program. What he doesn’t mention is that the standards are those applied to bridges built today. When dealing with existing bridges, especially those of historic value, and in a sensitive setting or environment, the strict application of modern standards is, according to the FHWA, inappropriate. There must be flexibility, and the context of the bridge must be taken into consideration. Federal funds received for this project are for rehabilitation in addition to replacement. Has that ever been revealed at a public meeting?
Preservation
Eddy says that the old bridge will be handed over to the Parks Department as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge. This is known as “demolition by neglect.” Once taken out of roadway service, maintenance of the old bridge will be a low priority. There has even been disagreement in the City bureaucracy who would be responsible for upkeep.
Flooding
Eddy paints a picture of frequent flooding with numerous rescues of drowning victims. Actually, if you’ve lived around here long enough, you know that flooding is quite rare and short-lived. Only one rescue incident is actually cited in the record. A more park-friendly design could end most all overtopping of the roadway without being too big. Again, no such alternative design was ever presented to the public.
Railroad Crossing
Eddy grossly exaggerates the problem of the at-grade crossing. There are at least six other locations where the same line crosses at-grade in this area. None of them are likely to be spanned anytime soon, if ever. Trains come through only about two per hour and pass by in about two minutes. The claim that spanning the railroad is the “number one request of people who live on Red Bridge Road” is false. In fact, in canvassing the area, we have yet to find anyone like that. There are people in this world who cannot stand to wait a minute or two, even in a setting as lovely as Minor Park. But, should the rest of us lose this connection with nature so that we can arrive at our destinations that much faster on the infrequent occasions we are stopped by the train? And remember, open up this road and congestion will increase in time. The net result, longer waits at traffic lights down the road. Finally, paramedics refute the claim that the crossing hinders emergency vehicles. The extremely rare minute or two gained with the new bridge is immeasurably offset by the rising danger of the high-speed, icing-prone bridge that shunts vehicles down a 4% grade into an intersection.
Promises, Promises
Eddy’s “Three-Lane Circus” design for the adjoining road is being trotted out to distract concern about the immediate threat of BridgeZilla. What meaning does a design have that has no chance of being put in place for fifteen years? If the new bridge is completed, it will no doubt affect traffic on the rest of Red Bridge. Then, it’s back to the drawing board to accommodate that. Is there any other reason that a promise made to the people living on Red Bridge west of Wornall took the form of a non-binding resolution rather than an ordinance? That resolution, sneaked into the legislative docket as though it had been through the committee process, was passed in a manner unprecedented in the experience of our observers of the City Council. Two members bucked the culture of conformity on the Council and refused to go along with what Dr. Eddy called “unanimous support”.
Something Big
An inside source at City Hall says “There’s something big behind this project.” Everything that’s happened indicates it’s much more than just a bridge replacement. Various sources tell us that Eddy is using his pet bridge project to prove he is ready for prime time. Then corporate contributions will flow to his mayoral campaign.
Level of Opposition
Eddy says it’s only a couple of “nut cases” who oppose his bridge. To date (3/6/2006), the 126 registrants at redbridgeroad.org oppose the City’s design by almost a nine-to-one margin. Friends of Red Bridge collected over 200 names on a petition drive. They were just getting started, but gave up when they found that Eddy didn’t care how many people signed the petition, or even if the bridge was needed. “Traffic counts don’t matter”, he said. “The bridge is going to happen. If you don’t like it, don’t vote for me.”
To Learn More or Get Involved - redbridgeroad.org
Craig Morea 816-942-2138 Sharron Hill 816-942-1557
Teresa Edens 816-765-2167 Arnold McMann 816-942-7026