Some background: With the widening of Transmountain, the current entrance and exit from the Tom Mays Unit of the Franklin Mountains State Park will become even more dangerous than it is today. Although the TxDOT plan to widen Transmountain does not address this danger, most people are reasonably concerned. Some alternative plans have been proposed.
Dr. Richard Bonart DVM, a member of the PSB recently gave a presentation with his suggestions:
Bonart Plan for Access to Tom Mays
His suggestion puts an access road alongside Transmountain to the north and takes into account planned hike and bike trails. (Slide 4) It also makes mention of existing culverts just to the east of the current entrance that could be retrofitted to become solely an animal corridor with use by hikers and mountain bikers as well. (Slide 5) The model for the corridor would be those used in Oregon (Slide 6).
The alternative proposed today in a presentation given by Pat Adauto is similar to Dr. Bonart's. It provides an access road off of Paseo del Norte (as does Dr. Bonart's) and enters the park a bit to the north of Bonart's - using an existing trail that is the beginning of the southern route of the current Lower Sunset Trail. That alternative also has the advantage of following a road to be built to a "resort" as approved earlier by City Council. Indeed this route was also mentioned years ago by Dr. Bonart to TxDOT.
Too often some people see those of us in the conservation/environmental community as in lock-step singular agreement on all things. For example, I don't always agree with the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coaltion and vice versa. I don't write for the Open Space Board nor am I affiliated in any fashion with Frontera Land Alliance, a non-political/non-profit land trust organization. I recently encouraged members of a neighborhood association to oppose a recommendation for a zoning change given by OSAB to the City Plan Commission. I was one of only two votes against this egregious recommendation - enough said at least for now. Obviously some in the conservation community take quite an exception to my views about the ballpark (more on that later). And the recent election put many of us in the O'Rourke camp and many in the Reyes camp. We have our differences and we aren't all the same though we share common goals.
One proposal from the conservation community for access to the State Park would build an interchange off of Transmountain about where there is an existing runnaway lane. That interchange would provide an underpass for safe entrance to and exit from the park. It could also be utilized by animals for nocturnal passage. Although this plan would provide safe access and egress for motorized vehicles and human beings, I have two serious reservations about it. First, the interchange would be a mini-spaghetti bowl blocking the view shed of the mountain. Second, I really don't want to mix vehicles with animals even if you expect no cars after 10 p.m. and animals only from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. (Animals can be rather sloppy about their time keeping.) I've seen Mule Deer out during the day - many in those parts.
Dr. Rick Bonart (in red) explains his plan to (counter-clockwise from foreground) Dave Wilson, Borderland Mountain Bike Association, Ed Escudero, Chairman of the PSB, Brent Sanders, BMBA, and Dr. Cesar Mendez, Park Superintendent standing in culvert.
The PSB's Alternative 1 also means that a resort can become a grand entryway into the park - an encouragement to get people outdoors and an opportunity for eco-tourism and eco-tourist dollars for the City as well as places for retreats, strategic planning, museum space. Think of a place like Indian Lodge in the Davis Mountains State Park. A mini-spaghetti bowl only eats up more natural open space. A simple access road tied into an Indian Lodge-type resort provides an opening into natural open space.
Not only did the PSB recommend Alterantive 1 but they recommended the Bonart animal corridor at the place where the culverts are now.
So stop it, PSB! You're ruining my reputation!
Actually, keep it up!
Jim, you are correct - we do not always agree. My comment is, "Are you out of your mind?" The option chosen today by BSP for a new entrance to the FMSP is the worst possible option for the park, although it is clearly the best option for those who want to see development and habitat destruction north of Transmountain Rd and next to the park.
ReplyDeleteYour friend always, judy
Enhanced Entrance Needed to Our Park
ReplyDeleteRight here in El Paso, we have the LARGEST Park in the entire lower 48 states that is inside city limits – the Franklin Mountains State Park (FMSP). We should be singing the praises of our park (google it)! We already have this huge asset and it would take little effort to encourage nature tourism and bring visitors from far and wide to El Paso.
We should enhance access to FMSP at every opportunity. Instead, PSB staff recommends a backdoor approach (TXDOT’s alternative #1); the worst alternative entrance to the Tom Mays section of Franklin Mountains State Park (other than the current death trap requiring at-grade crossing high-speed traffic lanes). Admitting that Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has not finalized the analysis of TXDOT’s six alternative entrances, there is not an official TPWD position on the preferred alternative. FMSP Superintendent, expressing his personal opinion, favors an alternative that includes a front entrance including a under/overpass structure (as in alternatives 3 and 4) because they are relatively less intrusive, it is a front entrance, addresses our safety concerns, and creates a passing corridor for wildlife.
PSB staff articulated the difficulty to move forward with alternative 1, backdoor approach, which requires building Paseo Del Norte north of Transmountain Rd. Currently, that road is only a figment of PSB’s imagination. There is NO money to build it and NO identified source from which to seek the money. Building Paseo Del Norte mandates selling the land to developers who would benefit from such a road. The next piece of the “backdoor” approach to the Park requires a gravel farm road built from Paseo Del Norte, east to the Park. Gravel roads may minimize environmental impact BUT does it look like an entrance to a world class Park? Will visitors with low clearance vehicles or RVs decide to go elsewhere when they see they must go off pavement to get into Our Park?
Neither the gravel road nor Paseo Del Norte are on TXDOT right-of-way, so getting this backdoor included in a TXDOT project will require complicated legal hoops and extensive negotiations. While these lengthy details for building new roads are coordinated, there will be NO adequate entrance to Our Park!
The worst part of the PSB supported alternative 1, is that there is only the “suggestion” to include hike and bike trails and wild life crossings to connect the north and south sections of the Park fragmented by Transmountain Rd – soon to be a major highway and bypass with heavy truck traffic and certainly speeds well in access of the posted limit.
There are better ways to get into the Tom May’s Section of FMSP! TXDOT’s alternatives 3 and 4 have major advantages to the park, its visitors and wildlife. These options include some form of an underpass near the current entrance to FMSP. They all ensure safety of visitors crossing under Transmountain Rd to enter the Park, allow for easy direct access to the Park from Transmountain Rd, and create a connection between the north and south for people and wildlife.
Please, let’s do the right thing: Give FMSP personnel time to analyze the alternatives and then follow their recommendations to optimize our outstanding Franklin Mountains State Park. Visit Our Park and you will see for yourself why it is worth the effort to do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Judy Ackerman
3344 Eileen Dr., El Paso, TX 79904
915-755-7371
Cell: 703-622-0661
Actually, my plan is a diamond overpass into the park. It's just moved westward to utilize Paseo del Norte. From there the dangers associated with freeway style traffic are quickly transitioned into a smaller GI/LID designed spur road through the natural open space and into the park.
ReplyDeleteA wildlife pedestrian corridor is planned by improving the 3 culverts at the current entrance. The culverts will be enlarged and in conjunction with fencing copy the wildlife crossings pioneered by Oregon DOT. This location was the first choice for Lois Balin, TPW wildlife biologist.
Alt 1 is not a “backdoor approach” but a more peaceful entrance created in a style common to other Texas State Parks of world stature like Heuco Tanks. The spur road entrance to Hueco is safe and more compatible with the natural open space and is in stark contrast to the mini- spaghetti bowls offered by options 3,4, and 5.
There is money to do the project, and if we don’t use it, someone else will! The MPO has made 7.5 million dollars in funding available to TxDOT to redo the current design. Because the estimate for Alt 1, is between 2.5 to 4 million dollars, getting the spur road on system provides excess funding for the wildlife/pedestrian crossing and deer fencing.
Alternate 1 as passed by the PSB is a holistic approach to solve the impacts associated with the ongoing expansion of Transmountain, as well as the anticipated impacts that will occur as the NW Master Plan is developed. Paseo del Norte and the two areas of development north of Transmountain Road will occur, regardless of which alternate entrance is chosen. See for yourself, drive up Transmountain today and see the construction.
We need to leverage this opportunity. If Paseo del Norte does double duty as the entrance to the Park, and the roadway to developed areas, the open space impact is reduced by 50%. Instead of two roads, my plan requires only one. In fact the only additional roadway required is a small section from the resort area to the park.
Further, I place a considerable amount of faith in the ability of Pat Adauto, Judge Escobar, the City of El Paso, the PSB, and Commissioner Houghton to get this project "on system". If we are lucky, it can be done in a timely enough manner to occur as a change order. That means constructing an interim entrance can be avoided.
I truly believe that if all the pieces are included in the final product, the results will be spectacular. Pedestrians, hikers, and wildlife will be completely segregated from the highway. Visitors will begin their “park experience” the moment they exit the freeway. The drive through the preserved open space along Paseo del Norte will be beautiful. The new feel of the whole area will be a focal point to leverage ecotourism and showcase El Paso.
Actually, my plan is a diamond overpass into the park. It's just moved westward to utilize Paseo del Norte. From there the dangers associated with freeway style traffic are quickly transitioned into a smaller GI/LID designed spur road through the natural open space and into the park.
ReplyDeleteA wildlife pedestrian corridor is planned by improving the 3 culverts at the current entrance. The culverts will be enlarged and in conjunction with fencing copy the wildlife crossings pioneered by Oregon DOT. This location was the first choice for Lois Balin, TPW wildlife biologist.
Alt 1 is not a “backdoor approach” but a more peaceful entrance created in a style common to other Texas State Parks of world stature like Heuco Tanks. The spur road entrance to Hueco is safe and more compatible with the natural open space and is in stark contrast to the mini- spaghetti bowls offered by options 3,4, and 5.
There is money to do the project, and if we don’t use it, someone else will! The MPO has made 7.5 million dollars in funding available to TxDOT to redo the current design. Because the estimate for Alt 1, is between 2.5 to 4 million dollars, getting the spur road on system provides excess funding for the wildlife/pedestrian crossing and deer fencing.
Alternate 1 as passed by the PSB is a holistic approach to solve the impacts associated with the ongoing expansion of Transmountain, as well as the anticipated impacts that will occur as the NW Master Plan is developed. Paseo del Norte and the two areas of development north of Transmountain Road will occur, regardless of which alternate entrance is chosen. See for yourself, drive up Transmountain today and see the construction.
We need to leverage this opportunity. If Paseo del Norte does double duty as the entrance to the Park, and the roadway to developed areas, the open space impact is reduced by 50%. Instead of two roads, my plan requires only one. In fact the only additional roadway required is a small section from the resort area to the park.
Further, I place a considerable amount of faith in the ability of Pat Adauto, Judge Escobar, the City of El Paso, the PSB, and Commissioner Houghton to get this project "on system". If we are lucky, it can be done in a timely enough manner to occur as a change order. That means constructing an interim entrance can be avoided.
I truly believe that if all the pieces are included in the final product, the results will be spectacular. Pedestrians, hikers, and wildlife will be completely segregated from the highway. Visitors will begin their “park experience” the moment they exit the freeway. The drive through the preserved open space along Paseo del Norte will be beautiful. The new feel of the whole area will be a focal point to leverage ecotourism and showcase El Paso.