In 1925, bridge building was more art than science.
To cross Cheyenne Creek at Evans Avenue in Cheyenne Cañon, crews grabbed 16 old steel railroad rails — narrow gauge — framed them with wood, poured concrete and collected rock to fashion railings.
Voilá — a pretty little two-span bridge was created.
Given the small volume of traffic in Cheyenne Cañon then, it was plenty sturdy.
Not anymore.
Today, it is rated “structurally deficient.” The worst bridge in Colorado Springs.
Eighth-worst in Colorado. Unsafe for garbage trucks or fire trucks to cross.
You might think replacing it would be a no-brainer.
You’d be wrong.
The tiny 30-by-20 foot span is the focus of a big snit on Pine Grove Avenue, home of the famous Starr Kempf wind sculptures.
Folks there are fired up, convinced the city is conspiring to use $840,000 in federal bridge-replacement money to dramatically change their quiet, wooded little neighborhood.
Neighbor Ellen Casey has rallied neighbors to fight suggestions by the city that, as part of the bridge project, it’s time to consider realigning the confusing entrance to the North Cheyenne Cañon Park and parking for the Starsmore Discovery Center. Here’s a view from FlashEarth.com.
The neighbors’ reaction shocked Dan Krueger, senior civil engineer overseeing the bridge project. He said it simply makes sense to examine other issues at the Evans Avenue/Cheyenne Boulevard intersection besides just the bridge.
Folks driving west often are confused by the three-way intersection of Evans, North Cheyenne Cañon and South Cheyenne Cañon roads. School buses and trucks often veer right up the north road and get stuck trying to turn around, the city told Pine Grove residents.
Another issue is the parking lots for Starsmore. School kids must cross the busy south road to reach the center.
So he created 10 options. One option is to do nothing. The second is to strictly replace the existing bridge. The next 8 are more elaborate. See what you think.
This one shows Evans Avenue curving into the park, over a new bridge. The old bridge is preserved for foot traffic. Pine Grove would remain a side street.
In this version, the bridge is replaced and the intersection realigned.
This is a more radical realignment. It curves Evans into the park over a new bridge, preserving the old for pedestrians. It also swaps the parking lot and the road so visitors to Starsmore don’t have to cross lanes of traffic.
This configuration replaces the bridge and squares up the intersection but leaves Evans Avenue basically the same with a change to the parking lot and road in the park.
This version uses a traffic circle, or round-about, at the intersection and preserves the old bridge for pedestrians.
In this version, the bridge would be replaced and a traffic circle built.
This incorporates the realigned Evans, parking lot and road and traffic circle.
This is the last version with the traffic circle and a bridge replacement.
Let me know what you think about these options.
=================================================================================
Well, I live in the neighborhood and during the summer give directions daily, so I do agree it is confusing.
I like B-3 or C-3 the best, but am not wild about having more roads through the picnic area se of the Starsmore, as it will likely just create more garbage for me to pick up. (For some reason far too many park users seem to think the park is their dump.)
However, the city has pretty much abrogated the running of North Cheyenne Canon Park (the vistor centers, programs, trails) to the neighborhood, only paying 1 full time and 1 part time employee for maintenance, so I do think that the neighborhood should have the final say, even if I don’t agree with it.
But it does illustrate the larger problem with COS, we’ve got way too many people who think saying ‘no’ is the height of community.
When does a want become a need? The residents don’t want this fixed, so what’s the big deal? City engineering has money (tax money) that they need to spend, so this now becomes a requirement? Why do municipal employees feel the need to do something about a problem they have noted, but against the desires of those affected? This is how government grows…
Additionally, I don’t live there, so my opinion really is of no matter. My advocating for one plan over another would be sticking my nose where it doesn’t belong.
If the property owners affected don’t approve this, how about giving the grant back, to be used for another project of more value? Or, how about investing the money in a CD or something, for the eventual requirement of replacing the bridge? How (or why) did the grant application start, if the residents don’t want the changes? Didn’t the city ask first if there was a need? Or, did the engineering department find the need, get the grant, and propose the changes, in that order?
Ken,
Perhaps you missed the part where it said the bridge is dangerous. It is structurally deficient. It rates 21 on a scale of 100. It’s the worst bridge in the city. One of the worst in Colorado. It is unsafe for garbage trucks, school buses, fire trucks.
I don’t think replacing a dangerous bridge is indulging a “want” as you suggest. The city would be irresponsible to ignore it.
Also, the bridge is on park property. It is a public street used by many thousands more people than just the handful who live nearby. It gets 700 cars a day.
I believe all taxpayers have a voice in how a city road or bridge is replaced and how tax dollars should be used. That’s sticking your nose exactly where it belongs.
The only question in my mind is whether to do more than just replace the bridge. Since the park and bridge are on the National Register of Historic Places, there is an argument to be made for preserving the bridge and building a new one to the west.
I believe it is our duty to debate those types of issues.
Bill Vogrin
Bill -
Thanks for the reply, but I think we’re talking about perhaps two seperate issues. Replacement of the bridge structure (which you note is deficient), and using $840,000 in federal bridge-replacement money to dramatically change their quiet, wooded little neighborhood.
This latter position is the point to which I was responding, as I took this to be the focus of your article, as well as the request for opinion.
I do not have the data to discuss the merits of fixing the bridge, and assume that the engineering evaluation is valid.
I stand by my statement that this is a representative example of design creep, and of the need to inflate projects to justify a budgetary amount.