Figures.
The City has been full-steam-ahead on the road project from day one...
...but they have to pretend like they are listening to us and then taking our comments into consideration when making a decision -- Especially because MODOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) is watching them.
So, when they "make their decision", they send out this press release.
And the K.C. Star swallows it, hook line and sinker.
The real story was that the City was submitting their application to MODOT. The content of the press release was a smokescreen, a non-event. The real purpose and intended effect of such a press release (and of its echo-article in the Star) is to discourage residents in the Red Bridge area who have been opposed to the "Bridge-Zilla" project.
6 comments:
I heard that channel four fell for it too! It was like "game over". How disheartening that our local media are either so gullible, or so willing to be an outlet for the City's lies.
I don't understand why people are against this plan?! The bridge should have been replaced decades ago and this will be a boom for property values for the area as people working in Johnson County will see Red Bridge as a valid place to commute from. Currently, it's always backed up either by a train, poorly timed traffic lights or congestion because of curves in the road that serve no purpose. You have a new intersection as part of the triangle and rapidly expanding development to the west. Connection will only benefit Red Bridge.
The above comment is typical of the outright hysteria of the "BridgeZilla" supporters. The road is very rarely congested. I was walking along the road at the peak of the morning rush hour today (Friday) and no cars were delayed at all for any reason. Trains are so infrequent that I went for three months without being stopped there despite crossing them about 12 times a week. Curves in the road serve to slow traffic, and traffic engineers are now INSTALLING curves where the road was once straight in more progressive parts of the country. (i.e. NOT HERE)
Property values have already been documented falling in the area, and it is directly attributable to the threat of road widening 20 years in the future.
Maybe someone should take a look at RedBridgeRoad.org to find out why people are opposed to this plan. People also shouldn't complain about things they don't know anything about. Why would someone say the bridge should have been replaced decades ago when it was reconstructed in 1982? Who hasn't heard of curves being used as traffic calming devices? A new intersection at 71 and Red Bridge? It's always been there. It's just going to be bigger now because the highway is bigger. That's because the highway was designed to handle commuter traffic. The above blogger seems to think Red Bridge is a hassle. It may be for commuters, but not for those of us that live in the area. Red Bridge is a neighborhood road, not a traffic cut through. If you're commuting, use the highway. It was designed just for you.
if any one is willing to answer some questions about why they are against the red bridge road being widened could you post your email address (im writing a paper about it)
The opponents of the Red Bridge project have a web site where you can contact them. They will grant you an interview to answer any questions, I'm sure.
Post a Comment