North MacGregor Re-Alignment Thorough Hermann Park

[JamesL]

At first I was skeptical as to the necessity of this project, but in the end I think it will really enhance the park. Yes, driving under that tree canopy is pretty neat, but I don't think the drivers doing 50 mph and yakking on their cell phones ever gave a hoot. That fast traffic makes the running path - and I would imagine the golf course, as well - less enjoyable. And in the minutes of one of those hearings it states that there will in fact be a net loss in paved area since capacity will be the same and the crossovers will be eliminated.

I, for one, am glad that this is one road project that actually has some conservation value; i.e. it will confine the road impact to as small an area as possible, leaving vastly more contiguous green space.

[TheNiche]

This project was presented to the Texas Medical Center at one of their member institution meetings that I happened to attend over a year ago. The 10 plus acres of land will be used not only as a buffer zone for the golf course but will become a walking/hiking path similar to the one on the northeast side of the golf course. The canopy of trees will remain. These trees date back to the original park loop road that circled around the golf course and connected up with another park road in front of the present garden center.

Yes, but for all it's potential, the old roadbed along the northeast side of the golf course is really underdeveloped, underutilized, and unattractive.

It may seem like the park is gaining 10 acres, but that doesn't mean that the amount of undeveloped green space is actually being increased, just that land previously owned and landscaped by one City department (PW&E) is being transferred to a different City department (Parks). And not only are we bulldozing reforestation area, but if the old N. Macgregor roadbed looks anything like that northeast section, it'll be a net loss to the public.

There's more than one way to utilize a park. You need not be on foot to enjoy it.

[TheNiche]

At first I was skeptical as to the necessity of this project, but in the end I think it will really enhance the park. Yes, driving under that tree canopy is pretty neat, but I don't think the drivers doing 50 mph and yakking on their cell phones ever gave a hoot. That fast traffic makes the running path - and I would imagine the golf course, as well - less enjoyable. And in the minutes of one of those hearings it states that there will in fact be a net loss in paved area since capacity will be the same and the crossovers will be eliminated.

I, for one, am glad that this is one road project that actually has some conservation value; i.e. it will confine the road impact to as small an area as possible, leaving vastly more contiguous green space.

Oh, so drivers are just so completely oblivious to scenery that we may as well abandon all sign ordinances and forgo any future ROW landscaping that doesn't qualify as flood control? We can tax the signs (which are there in spite of that people are too distracted to look at them) and cut back on mowing expenses and nobody would ever really care.

And if some lone misguided motorist does care, well ____ them--they're not on foot and are therefore undeserving of such a sacred luxury as a nice view.

Sounds like a plan.

[cottonmather0]

These trees date back to the original park loop road that circled around the golf course and connected up with another park road in front of the present garden center.

So what if the trees stay? There are plenty of foot trails in parks all over town with tree canopies over them. What makes this area unique are the trees over the road.

Thanks, COH.

[kylejack]

So what if the trees stay? There are plenty of foot trails in parks all over town with tree canopies over them. What makes this area unique are the trees over the road.

Thanks, COH.

Contiguous park and improvement of the existing inadequate pedestrian/bike trail seems like a better use of land to me than a shaded drive half a mile long. There's plenty of beautification that can be done after the realignment is complete. Its going through a park, after all!

Edited January 27, 2009 by kylejack

[skyphen]

Just to be sure I'm following, so essentially the greenspace that will be reclaimed is the median, correct?

[kylejack]

Just to be sure I'm following, so essentially the greenspace that will be reclaimed is the median, correct?

You could think of it that way, but its pretty big to be called a median.

[TheNiche]

Just to be sure I'm following, so essentially the greenspace that will be reclaimed is the median, correct?

Not entirely. The existing median, a reforestation area, is bulldozed and used for new roadbed. The old roadbed is removed. The net difference in total land area covered by road is negligible, so the claim that 10 acres of park space has been "reclaimed" is disingenuous.

What has really happened is that the former roadbed is converted to park space and that the sliver of park space in the northernmost part of the median becomes contiguous TO THE GOLF COURSE.

The golf course is btw not contiguous (if roads are boundaries) with the part of the park that has Smith Lake and the Zoo. And that section of the park is not contiguous with the strip between Main Street and Fannin, or to the chopped up mess of NINE different non-contiguous pieces of Hermann Park that are in the vicinity of the Sam Houston statue and Mecom Fountain. Then there are another TWO sections of non-contiguous Hermann Park which will still be south of the new alignment of Macgregor.

[plumber2]

Not entirely. The existing median, a reforestation area, is bulldozed and used for new roadbed. The old roadbed is removed. The net difference in total land area covered by road is negligible, so the claim that 10 acres of park space has been "reclaimed" is disingenuous.

What has really happened is that the former roadbed is converted to park space and that the sliver of park space in the northernmost part of the median becomes contiguous TO THE GOLF COURSE.

The golf course is btw not contiguous (if roads are boundaries) with the part of the park that has Smith Lake and the Zoo. And that section of the park is not contiguous with the strip between Main Street and Fannin, or to the chopped up mess of NINE different non-contiguous pieces of Hermann Park that are in the vicinity of the Sam Houston statue and Mecom Fountain. Then there are another TWO sections of non-contiguous Hermann Park which will still be south of the new alignment of Macgregor.

And those two sections are, the section along Alemda Rd. and the section where the Pioneer Log Cabin is?

[TheNiche]

And those two sections are, the section along Alemda Rd. and the section where the Pioneer Log Cabin is?

One of these sections is bounded mostly by S. Macgregor and Brays Bayou. The other one is along Almeda.

[JamesL]

The lion's share of the old "median" is not being bulldozed. They were even out moving mature trees yesterday. And, as kylejack noted, the road will still go through scenic parkland. Confining the noise and visual pollution of the roadway to a smaller area is certainly not all bad.

[RedScare]

There's more than one way to utilize a park. You need not be on foot to enjoy it.

I love this quote. What says more about America than the argument that parks are meant to be enjoyed from the comfort of one's own vehicle.

[Houston19514]

The lion's share of the old "median" is not being bulldozed. They were even out moving mature trees yesterday. And, as kylejack noted, the road will still go through scenic parkland. Confining the noise and visual pollution of the roadway to a smaller area is certainly not all bad.

Now, now.... let's not be trying to muddle things up with actual facts. ;-)

[Houston19514]

The lion's share of the old "median" is not being bulldozed. They were even out moving mature trees yesterday. And, as kylejack noted, the road will still go through scenic parkland. Confining the noise and visual pollution of the roadway to a smaller area is certainly not all bad.

Now, now.... let's not be trying to muddle things up with actual facts. ;-)

[TheNiche]

The lion's share of the old "median" is not being bulldozed. They were even out moving mature trees yesterday. And, as kylejack noted, the road will still go through scenic parkland. Confining the noise and visual pollution of the roadway to a smaller area is certainly not all bad.

Most of those who actually experience the park in that area are motorists. What of the visual pollution that is added to that experience when two ugly roadways are merged?

[TheNiche]

I love this quote. What says more about America than the argument that parks are meant to be enjoyed from the comfort of one's own vehicle.

I have a collection of most of the Official Texas State Highway Maps released since 1937. Extremely few of them include urban scenes, reflecting IMO that driving is an experience that transcends mere movement from point A to point B. People can and do enjoy scenic roads.

You can also look to innumerable park roads that have been developed, maintained, and even upgraded at great cost throughout the United States and Texas which serve no function except to be enjoyed from the cockpit of an automobile.

A great number of people and--from my observation--the majority of park users prefer this approach to experiencing nature. And certainly in the vast concrete jungle that can describe a major urban area, a brief stretch of parkway can be a coveted experience. I've seen in several posts on HAIF where people decide on a new residence on the basis of that the drive to work is a scenic one.

This is not to say categorically, as you did, that "parks are meant to be enjoyed from the comfort of one's own vehicle." I believe that to be a misnomer. However, scenic roadways are IMO one of many important functions of public parks.

[Houston19514]

I have a collection of most of the Official Texas State Highway Maps released since 1937. Extremely few of them include urban scenes, reflecting IMO that driving is an experience that transcends mere movement from point A to point B. People can and do enjoy scenic roads.

You can also look to innumerable park roads that have been developed, maintained, and even upgraded at great cost throughout the United States and Texas which serve no function except to be enjoyed from the cockpit of an automobile.

A great number of people and--from my observation--the majority of park users prefer this approach to experiencing nature. And certainly in the vast concrete jungle that can describe a major urban area, a brief stretch of parkway can be a coveted experience. I've seen in several posts on HAIF where people decide on a new residence on the basis of that the drive to work is a scenic one.

This is not to say categorically, as you did, that "parks are meant to be enjoyed from the comfort of one's own vehicle." I believe that to be a misnomer. However, scenic roadways are IMO one of many important functions of public parks.

As JamesL and kylejack have noted, the road will still go through scenic parkland. So everyone can be happy.

[TheNiche]

As JamesL and kylejack have noted, the road will still go through scenic parkland. So everyone can be happy.

Will it still be scenic, even though motorists are no longer under an arch of mature oak trees and must view a wide swath of concrete and oncoming traffic?

IMO, no.

[cottonmather0]

Will it still be scenic, even though motorists are no longer under an arch of mature oak trees and must view a wide swath of concrete and oncoming traffic?

IMO, no.

We can wait and enjoy the new canopy in 30 years. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and admire the wonderfully efficient traffic flow and thank the city for "reclaiming" park land next to a golf course.

[TheNiche]

We can wait and enjoy the new canopy in 30 years. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and admire the wonderfully efficient traffic flow and thank the city for "reclaiming" park land next to a golf course.

The bridge will make for more efficient traffic flow, but I don't see any other compelling evidence that traffic will flow better as a result of the realignment.

As for 30-year patience, whoever said it was a virtue was a menace to society.

[houstonranger]

The bridge will make for more efficient traffic flow, but I don't see any other compelling evidence that traffic will flow better as a result of the realignment.

how will the bridge make for more efficient traffic flow in the area?

The bridge is not there now, thus no traffic at all.

The way I see it the bridge, and the traffic it will bring, will very much add to the congestion.

Driving down N MacGregor when this is done, I actually think there will need to be a traffic light now due to the bridge bringing traffic at a right angle to the alignment........

[JLWM8609]

Driving down N MacGregor when this is done, I actually think there will need to be a traffic light now due to the bridge bringing traffic at a right angle to the alignment........

Though the bridge isn't there, a traffic light has been there for about 10 years now.

[TheNiche]

how will the bridge make for more efficient traffic flow in the area?

The bridge is not there now, thus no traffic at all.

The way I see it the bridge, and the traffic it will bring, will very much add to the congestion.

Driving down N MacGregor when this is done, I actually think there will need to be a traffic light now due to the bridge bringing traffic at a right angle to the alignment........

Of foremost importance is that the new ambulance route will be up Cambridge, a wide uncongested street, as opposed to others leading to the Texas Medical Center which are more crowded with commuter traffic coming off of the freeways.

Somewhere on the TMC website is a thematic map that shows where the concentrations of TMC workers live. There is a dense cluster of apartments along and off of Cambridge which house a massively large number of TMC workers and students. The most direct access they have is along Fannin or Almeda-to-Holcombe, and those routes get very congested. By routing those people up Cambridge, it relieves congestion on the thoroughfares frequented by the people coming off of the freeway system. And as was pointed out, this can be done without adding any new stop lights.

There are also shuttle busses from TMC institutions that serve that dense pocket of apartments, and they will utilize Cambridge as part of their route because it will be faster and more direct. Better service means that people are more likely to use transit.

[Grungy]

It looks to me like this effort is going to really simplify the intersection(s) where N. MacGregor meets N. MacGregor, just north of the new bridge.

There likely will no longer be the island of trapped cars between the Confederate Veterans statue and the bayou.

I've seen a lot of accidents at that intersection.

This may help.

It's also going to cure some roadway flooding problems, by eliminating that piece of road entirely.

Yes, we may get new flooding problems if the work they're doing right now isn't planned and executed properly.

There are some challenges, such as moving the large pumping station in the esplanade.

If they really wanted to make most of the park land accessible, they would move the sewage lift station so the roadway could follow the curves of the bayou. That's not gonna happen...

[house567]

If they cut down all the trees, then we can better admire Richard Wainedi's bridge with its 4 phallic symbols (it's art I guess). Wonder what those special forms cost? And the Houston Bike people had to fight with everything possible to get bicycle paths under and connecting to the new bridge. At least the Ronald McDonald House kids can enjoy the spewing traffic fumes in their confiscated play area between rounds of chemo and radiation. Excellent Medical Center planning, don't you think?

[TheNiche]

If they cut down all the trees, then we can better admire Richard Wainedi's bridge with its 4 phallic symbols (it's art I guess). Wonder what those special forms cost? And the Houston Bike people had to fight with everything possible to get bicycle paths under and connecting to the new bridge. At least the Ronald McDonald House kids can enjoy the spewing traffic fumes in their confiscated play area between rounds of chemo and radiation. Excellent Medical Center planning, don't you think?

I strongly suspect from this and other posts that you've made previously that you're just bitter about the extra traffic (including ambulances) that the bridge will bring because you live right there off of Cambridge, but you didn't want to bring that up in your rant because it'd weaken its rhetorical effect and open you up to circumstantial ad hominem attacks to the effect that you're just another self-interested NIMBYist.