Interfaith of The Woodlands
dark
Hand-Picked Top-Read Stories
Trending Tags
4 minute read

Gordy Bunch Calls for Removal from Montgomery County Road Bonds Proposal

WJ Editor
March 20, 2015
Graphic by Shawn Epps
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0

STUDY INDICATES WOODLANDS PARKWAY EXTENSION WILL HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT. BUNCH CALLS FOR REMOVAL FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY ROAD BONDS PROPOSAL

A Statement & Update from Gordy Bunch Montgomery County Road Bonds Issue

The residents of Montgomery County have a unique opportunity to come together to pass the first road bond in 10 years. We are sadly a decade behind in infrastructure development and our needs are great in every corner of the county, including The Woodlands where traffic congestion grows every day.

The proposal to spend $22 million to extend Woodlands Parkway out to SH249 needs to be exorcised from the plan because, as the Brown & Gay traffic study clearly shows, it will add almost 6,000 cars to the main artery of The Woodlands every day, with negative impacts during morning and evening rush hours as early as 2018. The unedited report says:

“The peak-hour intersection analyses show that the Woodlands Parkway extension will negatively impact the intersection of Woodlands Parkway at FM 2978 in 2018 and 2025, causing it to exceed acceptable vehicle delays during both peak hours, AM and PM. The impact to the intersection of Woodlands Parkway at Kuykendahl consists of additional vehicle delay only during all three design years, since this intersection already needs to be improved now” B&G Summary #8

The chart below illustrates the additional cars added to Woodlands Parkway between 2978 and Kuykendahl with (build) and without (No-build) the extension. Our first bonds issued in a decade should be for projects that eliminate current mobility issues and not for a project that creates new problems.

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED WOODLANDS PARKWAY EXTENSION FROM 2978 TO SH249

Gordy Bunch

My goal serving on the Bond Committee was to have a project list that everyone in the county could agree on guaranteeing the bond would pass this time. I cautioned in every meeting that one project – expanding Woodlands Parkway would draw major opposition as people fear another 1960 in their backyard. To date, over 2,000 residents have signed a petition and 73.8% currently oppose the extension according to The Villager On-Line Poll.
-more
ROAD BONDS – 2

It’s time for the county to adjust the project list respecting all constituents as we really need the bond to complete 1488, 242, 2978, Fish Creek, 1097, Research Forest, Rayford Road, 1485, 1314, Hardin Store Rd, Dobbin Huffsmith, 1774, 149, David Memorial, Robinson Rd, Gosling and Kuykendahl. These should all be higher priorities than a $22 million extension of WPK. Over $1.3 Billion in projects were initially identified providing many worthy alternatives to substitute the project off the list. Expanding Woodlands Parkway stayed on the list even though no one seemed to know what impact an extension would have on existing WPK infrastructure. Complicating that impact will be the expanded Bridge and road projects on Gosling and Kuykendahl that will add even more cars onto WPK coming from the south.

I ask again for Judge Doyal and Commissioner Riley to remove the Woodlands Parkway extension from the Bond project list, allowing Montgomery County to begin improving overdue countywide existing infrastructure improvements and reunite our county with a bond project list every community including my Hometown of The Woodlands can support.

Un-Edited CONCLUSIONS of study by Brown & Gay:
The following conclusions have been derived from the traffic impact analysis of the Woodlands Parkway Extension from FM 2978 to SH 249:

1. The Woodlands Parkway extension will result in more traffic on the existing section of Woodlands Parkway between FM 2978 and Kuykendahl Road consistently for all three design years, 2018, 2025 and 2040.
2. The Woodlands Parkway extension will cause the existing Woodlands Parkway section west of Kuykendahl traffic volume to exceed the four-lane capacity threshold by a small amount of traffic by 2025.
3. The Woodlands Parkway extension will cause the existing Woodlands Parkway section east of FM 2978 and west of Branch Crossing Drive to exceed the four-lane capacity threshold by 2040.
4. The section of Woodlands Parkway east of Branch Crossing Drive and west of Kuykendahl will exceed the four-lane capacity threshold under both scenarios, with or without the extension, by 2040.
5. The east-west corridor west of FM 2978, composed of FM 1488 and Hardin Store Road, will require widening if the Woodlands Parkway is not extended in 2025. The additional corridor capacity could be accomplished by widening Hardin Store Road from two to four lanes instead of extending Woodlands Parkway to the west. However, this would also require the widening FM 2978 from four to six lanes between Hardin Store Road and Woodlands Parkway by the same year, 2025.
6. The east-west corridor west of FM 2978, composed of FM 1488 and Hardin Store Road, will require widening if the Woodlands Parkway is extended by 2040, which will require adding four lanes to the corridor in addition to the Woodlands Parkway extension.
7. The east-west corridor analysis east of FM 2978, composed of FM 1488, Research Forest Drive and Woodlands Parkway, shows that whether the Woodlands Parkway is extended or not, will require additional corridor capacity by 2040.
8. The peak-hour intersection analyses show that the Woodlands Parkway extension will negatively impact the intersection of Woodlands Parkway at FM 2978 in 2018 and 2025, causing it to exceed acceptable vehicle delays during both peak hours, AM and PM. The impact to the intersection of Woodlands Parkway at Kuykendahl consists of additional vehicle delay only during all three design years, since this intersection already needs to be improved now.

Total
0
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Pin it 0
21 comments

  1. An additional study by an additional Engineering Firm would make this argument more beneficial. Providing one study doesn’t say much. Most people think that people that live in The Woodlands are just being snobs about through traffic when in actuality having one major inlet and outlet for all people who live and work in The Woodlands is bad. Any logical person can see that. I support Craig Doyal and Charlie Riley. Shut your mouth Woodland Snob Gordy. We all know you feel Charlie Riley is a bubba and you don’t respect him or residents of Magnolia.

    2. My personal experience with Gordy Bunch has been very positive. I have never sensed a single moment of pretentiousness, snobby or whatever metaphor you choose to use. I support the bond issue whether or not the one project is included. I don’t believe it helps move the support argument forward by being denunciatory yourself. I have personally spoken with Gordy Bunch and Steve Toth on the proposed bond issue. Even though they both disagree with my position, both have been eager to talk about it, while at the same time being respectful.

  2. I will not support this bond with the extension of Woodlands Parkway even if this means other needed projects suffer. Woodlands Parkway is already a serious problem with people going 60 mph or more on a 45 mph road and people continuing to blow through red lights. Speed limit is just that. A LIMIT. Not “it’s okay to go as fast as you want if there are no police around.” Not “it’s okay to go 5 mph over the speed limit because the police won’t pull you over for that.” LIMIT. I bet these people ground their kids for coming in 10 minutes over their curfew limit. Such a double standard. And you know they know better because as soon as they see a police car they slam on the brakes. Unfortunately there aren’t many places along The Woodlands Parkway where a police car could conceal itself so they could actually catch people. Eventually, if they write enough tickets people will slow down a bit. To add more cars would be a nightmare. There are much higher priorities that need to be addressed. I have lived in The Woodlands since 1992 when there were only about 30,000 people here; no mall; no Woodlands High School. I have seen The Woodlands change dramatically, some of it good, some of it not so good (the way they are cutting down the trees–you should see what my builder had to go through to only remove the trees necessary for the actual house being built and not all this clear-cutting). There is not “one major inlet & outlet for all people who live and work in The Woodlands.” There are several ways in and out of the community both east/west and north/south, specifically 5 roads east/west and once 99 is done, there will be 6 (there is 1488, 242, Research Forest, Woodlands Parkway, Lake Woodlands) and people like me who have lived here this long know the back ways to avoid all that mess when necessary. There is no logical reason to extend this road to 249 unless someone on the commission has a personal interest and would benefit financially from the extension. I am disappointed at Craig Doyal and Charlie Riley for standing firm on this issue, knowing full well most people do not support this. Voters don’t think their votes matter any more. Defeating this bond will send a message to them that they do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want, holding other much needed projects hostage just because they refuse to listen to their constituents. Once the bond is defeated, they will have no choice but to change their mind. Perhaps they’ll even lose their positions in the next election since people will be angry that their unwillingness to compromise caused hardship to people who already live here who need other projects completed. I feel they are sitting there saying, “If you don’t vote for this bond (because we won’t remove the Woodlands Parkway extension), then you will all suffer because all the other projects won’t be completed either.” It’s like a toddler tantrum. I won’t enable their behavior and will actively work to sway people to see the problem with this extension and motivate them to go out and vote against this bond.

  3. There is already more than 1 “major inlet and outlet” for The Woodlands – and therefore already significant traffic problems. It’s not an issue of being snobby, it’s an issue of not wanting more traffic problems before the current ones are resolved. The Woodlands residents, TOGETHER WITH, and just like, ALL South Montgomery County residents, desire for ALL of our area’s mobility issues to be dealt with – but resolved correctly and in a responsible manner.

  4. Lynne, your passion is admirable. Your name calling, not so much. When emotion takes over the discussion we get away from reasoning the facts.

    I have been following this closely, the only factual study done in recent years was by Commissioner Noack. When there is just so much money to go around, we better utilize however much that may be so that real mobility issues are be addressed. This study was done on actual, onsite physical count of traffic via Bluetooth that spanned 2 years. The Doya/Riley study was based on estimates. The difference in the 2 studies is undeniable. The Extension does not come into play for mobility until 25+ years out. Why are these gentlemen pushing so hard as to risk failure for the whole county? Why isn’t Riley focusing the $22 million on solving the gridlock IN Magnolia (1488@1774), my guess is that the residents of the Magnolia don’t want to disturb their way of life either.

    The benefactors of this Extension will ultimately be 2 very large developers. Let them build the road like George Mitchell did with Woodlands Parkway. Create a Road Utility District to issue bonds and pay for it, again like The Woodlands did. If a road that has not been identified as a mobility issue is to be constructed, take it off the backs of the taxpayers and onto the businesses that will “need” it.

    Lynne, stay passionate. I hope you will use that passion to question what needs to questioned, and then think independently of that passion to support where facts take you.

  5. I spent 20 minutes on 2978 this morning headed to work. On the way home it looked like a similar wait, but I did what I see others do – I cut through May Valley. I am sure that those residents were happy about me doing that.

    I read 5 comments above and have yet to see where there is any proof that opening up the Parkway will turn The Woodlands into anything people are claiming on what appears to be emotion only (1960 – really?).

    Where was the outcry when the Parkway was opened up to 2978 a couple of years ago? That you would think would have been a bigger sticking point. Now that the seal has been broken, those of use who live in the back of The Woodlands have a more efficient way of reaching 249, the Grand Pkwy, and SW Houston. That exit out the back (along with extending Woodlands Parkway) will relieve traffic in the front of TW – that’s a fact and not emotion.

  6. Brainz – the reference to FM1960 is about noise, related to volume, which I might add already exist without the Extension. Residents have already requested help with the noise. Expanding TWPKWY will involve taking out trees that are presently the sound barrier. The folks that support the Extension are using photos of the businesses, not the ones of the concrete sound barriers along the residential areas. Yes, residences back up to FM1960! And TXDOT has already approved AND funded doubling the lanes of FM2978, which will have a great deal to do with the relief you desire. The REAL issue is 1488 through Magnolia, in particular @ 1774.

    How would the residence in the Magnolia area feel about creating a major East-West through fare thru Magnolia? Not so much I’m guessing. Riley doesn’t want to upset this voters by doing what a “Farm to Market” road is intended to do. Why continue to perpetuate the mess in Magnolia that is well known by a multiple county area.

    Having the Extension of TWPKWY and a Toll Road around Magnolia protects that great hometown feel of Magnolia. Nice to have. Nothing more or less than what the residents of TW are trying to do.

    Extending TWPKWY is not going to create East-West relief. There are 3 major roads designed to do that for Montgomery County; 1488, 105 & Grand PKWY when completed.

    Don’t condemn TW residents for pushing back. The Commissioners had the opportunity to take this issue off the table and this bond would only need an election date to be a done deal. Push back on Doyal and Riley for confrontational behavior.

    1. I have heard others state that in order to expand Woodlands Parkway to 6 lanes would require taking trees from the median. Why do they have to touch the median at all? They can take in the emergency lane just as they have already done on much of Woodlands Parkway. It seems to have worked just fine. I agree that the trees serve multiple purposes and every effort should be taken to keep as many trees as possible.

      I disagree that Woodlands Parkway extension won’t provide any traffic relief. It may not initially, but as development happens along the extension, it seems reasonable to me that less traffic would cross 2978. People don’t use Woodlands Parkway from 2978 as a thoroughfare to I-45 now because there are way too many stop lights. I don’t see people changing that behavior with the extension of Woodlands Parkway.

      There are not three major roads for East-West travel in Montgomery County. No part of the Grand Parkway is in Montgomery County until you get over near I-45 and and Spring Stuebner. Segment G of 99 will be in Montgomery County, however, it connects The Woodlands to Hwy 59. A copy to the link showing segment G is included. Please correct me if I am wrong.

      https://www.grandpky.com/segments/g/GrandPkwySegG.html

      As you know, I do not condone people being disrespectful. The Woodlands residents have every right to push back if they believe something is not in their best interests, just as the residents outside of The Woodlands have a right to push forward for a project they believe is in their best interest.

      One thing I was not aware of until this week. All but one member of the Township Council have lived in The Woodlands for more than 10 years. I believe that is one of the issues regarding this entire disagreement over whether Woodlands Parkway should be extended or not. I would be curious to know what the longevity percentages are of those that oppose the extension as well as favor the extension. Of course, this is anecdotal evidence from people I have spoken with, but it seems to me the longer someone has been a resident of Montgomery County the trend line of support follows.

      1. Michael: You asked about if the length of the residency if it that lends them towards favoring or not favoring the vote, I vote “no” and I have lived in The Woodlands since November 1992, so coming up on 23 years. I have never opposed any road extension of The Woodlands until now. Unless they plan to build “The Woodlands” onto the other side of 2978, I see no reason to continue the road past 2978. I have always been opposed to the way they were building in the new villages–if you cut down most of the trees to build, that isn’t really an area full of woods which is one of the reasons The Woodlands was appealing to so many people. What I am very opposed to is some politician sticking in something that is on their personal agenda because they don’t think people will vote “no” because of all the VERY NEEDED road construction the bond will allow (or that very few people vote in such matters that it will sail through with little fanfare). That disrespects people. That disrespects the process. And that makes me more angry than anything else.

        1. I don’t see how it is a personal agenda when the WP “extension” has been on the books for more than 40 years. It was in the original plan of The Woodlands for WP to connect in to 290. The reason to continue the road is 2 fold. One, a new corridor for The Woodlands people on the west to have better access to 249. The other is development. Since The Woodlands seems to want no new development, that works out perfectly for the rest of Precinct 2 that sits outside of The Woodlands. We’ll take it!

          1. Sorry Michael but it has always been “on the books”….40 years to connect with 290. Really? The only reason the Extension would have connected to 249 is that George Mitchell owned the land in question and he as the developer would have paid for the road himself or via a RUD. HE SOLD IT. With that sale, that idea went out the door. He no longer had control over what happened. To say it has always been part of the plan. What plan, whose plan? The Commissioners have no plan! That’s the problem.

            They may have a plan to aid and abet their developer supporters but there is no countywide mobility plan. Only Precinct 3, that would be Noack, had any forethought about mobility needs. Took 2 years and $500K (of which $200K+ came from HGAC, you know, the link to Fed funds) but it is a real plan based on factual data from an independent source. At least Jim Clark made the effort to stretch his portion of the bond by leveraging with TXDOT.

            Doyal and Riley had the opportunity to remove the extension from the bond and like the donkeys they are, refused. There lies the root of this whole issue. If the bond fails, it lay at the feet of those two Commissioners, not with The Woodlands residents, not with any Tea Party, not with Gordy Bunch. The bond would be passing, despite all the other problems……like Meador’s $11million worth of “to be determined” (now that’s real mobility planning), like road repair that should be covered in the annual budget (= borrowing money to pay your regular bills) and did I mention no mobility plan.

            Because I want it is no reason to spend $22million. This road did not rise to the level of being part of a mobility need until 2040. How about using that same money to leverage TXDOT to fix the mess in Magnolia 1774/1488? Or is it that the good folks of Magnolia don’t want to increase traffic through their hometown either?

            Back to the Extension, first Doyal was saying “we are doing the road”, then ” hope the developers will donate the right of way” and now the developers are donating and building their own road. What is it Doyal? NO PLAN! If that is the case, no one is talking about less funds for the Extension. Sounds like negotiations with Iran. Do you think they might be polling? It’s become a stinky pile for the Commissioners and the Bond PAC.

          2. I consider myself Independent but mostly lean towards Democratic social agenda with the Republican fiscal agenda. Yes, the two can co-exist. So there are people like me who are not in favor of this. I don’t like corrupt politicians. I like James Noack and voted for him. He actually came to my door when he was campaigning and talked to me when he saw my son with autism. Even though it isn’t going to be part of his job, he asked me if Conroe ISD was doing a good job and we got into a very long discussion about that. He definitely got my vote. We need more people like him elected.

          3. Thanks for you comments. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. I’m sure we can agree on that. I don’t like corrupt politicians either. Another thing we agree on, I don’t know Commissioner Noack, but your comment refers to corrupt politicians. Are you speaking in general terms with regard to corrupt politicians or did you have people in mind when you wrote your comments?

          4. Any politician who only pushes the agenda of their financial contributors (including PAC money, corporations, etc.) versus listening to the majority of their constituents is corrupt because they have been bought.

          5. Would that also include Texas Patriot PAC? The article this week in The Villager states that the TPP is funded primarily from sources outside of Montgomery County. On listening to their constituents… There are more people that live OUTSIDE of The Woodlands than live IN The Woodlands. Simply because some in The Woodlands have a different view on the road bond doesn’t mean you are not being heard.

    2. Correction to the last paragraph of former post.

      All but one member of the Township Council have lived in The Woodlands for more than 10 years.

      SHOULD READ

      All but one member of the Township Council have lived in The Woodlands for 10 years or less.

  7. Now Riley is saying that even if the voters reject this bond on May 9th, he will not take it off any future road bond that might be brought back to the voters. What else do you need to know about these scoundrels? They do not represent the voters/taxpayers, they only represent their own agenda/campaign donors, you know the vendors that keep them in office. There are reasons for people to act this way and it’s not ethical reasons.

  8. Why don’ t you go to the source and ask TPP about donors rather than ask those that can’t possibly have the answer? The treasurer post in the Courier as Kerryman and signs his name Bill O’Sullivan.

  9. Pingback: Matthew Burton Announces Candidacy for The Woodlands Township Board of Directors | The Woodlands Journal

Comments are closed.

Previous Post

Dr. Jen Arnold to Speak at Interfaith Community Clinic Spring Event

byWJ Editor
March 2, 2015
2 minute read
Next Post
Riva Row Boat House

New Kayaking Experiences and Stand Up Paddle Boarding Come to The Woodlands Waterway this Spring

byVisit The Woodlands
March 20, 2015
2 minute read
Related Posts