More Information about Park Entrance Travesty

Before I go any farther, take the time to go to the FMWC call to action concerning the park entrance.  In addition to meeting dates and an email that you can write (complete with a list of email addresses), also go to TxDOT's Public Meeting Notice and see where you can send comments.  In all 4 calls to action: emails to officials, an MPO meeting on April 5 and the TxDOT meeting on April 10, and information where you can email your comments to TxDOT - window dressing for them, of course; but it will be great to have on record emails from all of you.

Now here's how the bad deal went down - the defunding of the TPWD preferred entrance to the FMSP which provided safety and better access by motorists along with an animal corridor. Just know that there is still more information coming in.

On February 25, 2013 Dr. Richard Bonart met with Bob Bielek, the El Paso District TxDOT Engineer, and City Council representative, Susie Byrd.  Rep. Ann Lilly also joined the meeting at the park entrance from Transmountain in question is in her district.  

Dr. Bonart reportedly either was misunderstood or misrepresented the position of the environmental/conservation community - viz., their support of the TPWD's Alternative 4: an underpass at the entrance that will support motorists, animals and hikers and bicyclists.  Bonart has opposed such a plan for a long time now and has lobbied for a route from Paseo del Norte about 1.5 miles from the park.  Since OSAB changed an earlier recommendation of the Bonart proposal to the TPWD preferred alternative, it seemed certain that the park entrance would be the TPWD's preferred plan.  Rep Lilly apparently also favors the TPWD proposal for an entrance in her district.  Unfortunately, one meeting can undo what the larger public favors.  Bielek is using the mis-information at the meeting to further what it now seems was his plan to scuttle a safer entrance to the park in the first place.

Bielek has been making several assertions about defunding the project for a new entrance that just don't seem to add up.

In one email he blames the Sierra Club:

From: Bob Bielek [mailto:Robert.Bielek@txdot.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: TXDOT Option 4

Ray,

To clarify the actual situation regarding the project to alter the entrance to Franklin Mountain State Park, the following are the facts:

1.  The funding for the project had to be obligated by the end of August of this year.  Because of the suit by the Sierra Club environmental processing was delayed and therefore the project can not be funded with those funds.  Also, the funds reserved for this project were insufficient for the alternative you describe.  We do not believe that finding alternative funding once the environmental process is complete will be a problem.

2.  In reviewing the situation, it does not appear that a change to the entrance that will exist after completion of the TransMountain West Project is necessary from a traffic safety perspective.

3.  A Public Meeting will be held April 10th, from 6PM to 8PM at Canutillo High School to advise the public of the alternatives that have been investigated and to permit the public to offer their own alternatives.  This is particularly important since it appears that the Purpose and Need for this project is not traffic safety but other issues, such as the safe passage of pedestrians and wildlife that wish to transit TransMountain.

We certainly welcome anyone with an interest in this project to attend the Public Meeting and to participate in the environmental process.

Bob Bielek, DPA, PE

District Engineer, El Paso District

Texas Department of Transportation

Sent from my iPad

However, the Sierra Club's attorney says that the Sierra Club's suit did not affect the entrance in any legal way:

From: David Frederick [mailto:dof@lf-lawfirm.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: FMSP Entrance and Sierra Club ?

All:

I am overseas for a short break.  So, this is perfunctory.  But, it is not correct or fair to say the Club's suit, which was over the expansion project from which TxDOT had earlier deleted (segmented) the park entrance project, affected the park entrance project in any legal sense.  TxDOT may have wished to move slowly on the park entrance project to make look more reasonable it's argument in court that the two projects were wholly independent, because, otherwise, the environmental impacts of the park entrance project should have been considered in the EA for the Transmountain road expansion project, and they were not.  Basically, TxDOT could more easily argue the park entrance project was not related to the expansion project, if the two were separated by more time and if the park entrance project were still vaguely defined.

David Frederick

Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell

Austin 78701      phone: (512) 469-6000

Furthermore traffic safety has been the primary reason for a discussion about a new park entrance since the expansion of Transmountain West from 2 lanes to 4 has been in front of the public.

In another email, Mr. Bielek asserts that he has never spoken with anyone at TPWD about the entrance alternative so, in effect, time has just run out and there is nothing that he can do about it now:

From: Bob Bielek <Robert.Bielek@txdot.gov>

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:04:04 -0600

To: Teschner, Richard<teschner@utep.edu>

Subject: Re: Loop 375's FMSP Tom Mays Entrance: A grade-level crossing against two lanes of downhill traffic is safe?

Richard,

First, I am not familiar with the original arguments made for TransMountain West.  Transitioning from a four lane facility to a two lane facility on a steep grade is a safety issue and if this is the argument made at that time it is quite valid.  It would also be a valid argument that the road is four lane for much of its length and that reducing capacity on steeply graded sections has an adverse impact on capacity, delay, increases pollutant discharge, and wastes fuel.  That said, when considering the situation when TransMountain West is complete, there will be no left turns permitted to eastbound TransMountain from the park entrance.  Eastbound traffic will be required to exit westbound to the frontage road (downhill) and then use the Texas turnaround at any of the interchanges to proceed eastbound.  Eastbound traffic entering the park will need to cross two lanes of traffic; however, the sight distance is virtually unlimited and the volumes are so low as to not meet any warrant for signalization much less grade separating the crossing.

I was not at the January 11th meeting you mention and I don't know if anyone from TxDOT attended that meeting.  I am unaware of any agreement between TxDOT and TPWD other than an exchange of land for the former TxDOT District Office now occupied by TPWD.  While there was an agreement for this exchange of land, really cleaning up an old situation since TPWD has been using the Clark Street TxDOT property for more than a decade; any "done deal" on implementation of any alternative being considered would have been a gross violation of the environmental process.  Since I am the TxDOT official that will make the recommendation for the preferred alternative as the process proceeds I can assure you that I have never even spoken to anyone from TPWD regarding TxDOT adopting a preferred alternative.

I appreciate you position regarding highway safety; however, my professional opinion is not consistent with yours.  I am afraid we will need to agree to disagree on this point.

Bob Bielek, DPA, PE

District Engineer

Texas Department of Transportation

Sent from my iPad

Elpasonaturally has reason to believe that there was substantial communication between TPWD and TxDOT including Bielek. More coming, folks.  Promise.