On May 9, Montgomery County voters will head to the polls to vote on a $350 million road bond proposal. The bond does not include an increase in property taxes and proposes 77 road projects in all four county precincts.

Nelda BlairWDL-2015-04-g-1-H1

Co-Chairwoman, Montgomery County Road Bond Committee, [email protected]

Nelda Blair is a former Woodlands Township director and was appointed co-chairwoman of the Montgomery County Road Bond Committee by the Commissioners Court. The committee compiled a list of recommended projects for the bond and is in support of the bond’s approval.

Why is the Road Bond Committee supporting this proposal? 

Mobility is crucial to the continued prosperity of Montgomery County. Drivers throughout the county face heavy traffic, gridlock, excruciating travel times and overburdened roadways every day as a result of our tremendous growth. While the county can budget for normal wear and tear, we need major road upgrades that are more expensive and require the issuance of bonds payable over time. This way the county can address our immediate transportation needs without increasing our taxes. So Commissioners Court appointed the Road Bond Committee to review important road projects, create a bond proposal, keep the public informed and educated about the process, and then encourage voters to support this very important road bond election May 9.

Does the Road Bond Committee have concerns regarding the impact of an extension of Woodlands Parkway?

The facts show that the extension of Woodlands Parkway will be an important benefit, both inside and outside The Woodlands, and that the emotional claims about ‘gridlock at Kuykendahl [Road] during rush hour’ or ‘the next [FM] 1960’ are dismissed by the very studies opponents cite. For example, the study shows a driver at the Kuykendahl [Road] intersection may be delayed during rush hour only an additional 16 seconds. Total traffic all day at that intersection in 10 years will only be 7 percent higher than it would be without the Woodlands Parkway extension.

What concerns do you have if the bond is not approved?

Quite simply, the loss of this road bond would prevent all 77 countywide projects from being built. That would cause a devastating impact on expected growth of the county. No one wants to live in a community where they cannot get to work, church, sports practice or home in decent time, including those businesses that bring jobs and tax revenue to our area. Voters approved a $160 million road bond package in 2005, yet a $200 million road bond in 2011 was lost in the wake of some of the same opposition we see today. So bond funds have not been available to build new roads for the past decade of growth. Montgomery County is behind because of short-sighted opposition in the past. We need roads now, and these road bonds are critical for us to catch up and keep up.

Why should voters support the bond?

Because it is good for our community. Because as a community that has worked together for decades we cannot let one project hold all 77 projects hostage. Because we cannot afford any further delay in addressing our overburdened and underperforming infrastructure. There are 77 road projects in the bonds that will improve our travel all over the county—north, south, east and west. Included in South County is the widening of the Gosling [Road] bridge, Lake Woodlands Drive, Robinson Road and Rayford Road, none of which will happen if we do not vote for this bond. We must work together to alleviate the unwarranted fears about Woodlands Parkway and aggressively address serious shortages in our transportation system.

Gordy BunchWDL-2015-04-g-1-H2

Director, The Woodlands Township, [email protected]

Gordy Bunch serves as a director on The Woodlands Township board. He formerly served on the Montgomery County Road Bond Committee but resigned after the list of projects for the bond was submitted to the Montgomery County Commissioners Court for approval. Bunch has since initiated a petition against the extension of Woodlands Parkway.

Why are you opposing the bond? 

I am against the extension of Woodlands Parkway because of the negative impact [it would have] on our community, not the bond referendum itself. A Brown & Gay study utilized actual traffic counts supplemented with Bluetooth and GPS tracking to follow the traffic conditions in real time giving it the most credibility. The study determined that there will be a 38 percent increase in traffic by 2018 with an additional 6,000 cars on Woodlands Parkway in the morning and evening rush hours with an additional 3,400 vehicles during the same drive times by 2025. The immediate impact of that project takes the level of service along Woodlands Parkway during peak hours from acceptable to complete failure. The most compelling reason for my objection is the 4,500 constituents which I represent who have also taken the time to express their concerns through our petition.

Why should voters oppose the bond?

There is no current countywide integrated mobility plan that could better prioritize bond proceeds. There is a South County Mobility Plan that took two years to develop and was coordinated with Montgomery County Precinct 3; the Houston-Galveston Area Council; the Texas Department of Transportation; the cities of Conroe, Shenandoah and Oak Ridge; The Woodlands Township and Rayford Road-area representatives. The county needs to update a similar plan and follow those prioritized near-term projects and plan for the long-term projects. Many of the projects attached to this bond have no studies to substantiate their need or validate which projects are necessary and the priority of each project.

What concerns do you have should the bond not be approved?

I was directly told that [the] Commissioners Court might retaliate against The Woodlands for opposing the bond. The threat was made that they could withhold funding projects within The Woodlands and would even seek to reduce the amount in the next bond that would be allocated to Precinct 3. [The Commissioners Court needs] to restart with zero-based thinking and perform a countywide integrated mobility plan that would fairly prioritize needs, not the wish lists of commissioners. Once that is complete, they should order a new bond election where every project is validated in the order of highest prioritization, fully studied, supported by actual data and above reproach.

Are there alternative projects to the Woodlands Parkway extension?

Brown & Gay identified expanding Hardin Store Road and FM 1488 as viable alternatives to extending Woodlands Parkway. Neither of those projects were shown as being needed until 2025, which brings us back to the question of ‘Why is this one project being pursued over higher- prioritized projects?’ The South County Mobility Plan only references the extension on its long-term map as proposed but was not considered priority enough for funding in the near-term or long-term plans. Precinct 2 chose not to participate in the most current study in the county, which brings us to the haphazard, uncoordinated bond issue May 9. I am a solid “No” and will be a solid “Yes” when the next bond does not include the extension and is substantiated with an updated, integrated county plan.

Duane HamWDL-2015-04-g-1-H3

President, Texas Conservative Tea Party Coalition, [email protected]

The Texas Conservative Tea Party Coalition is a political action committee based in The Woodlands that supports candidates and issues that meet its political philosophies.

Why is the Texas Conservative Tea Party Coalition supporting this proposal?

We are a conservative, common-sense group, and we have looked at all the facts. We are motivated and pushing this bond because not only do we believe it is vital to help alleviate traffic issues from a breakneck rate of growth, but also to make sure we protect property values and the quality of life for our residents in The Woodlands. We don’t believe that we can change the rate that people will flock to The Woodlands. Anything developed so perfectly that has led the country as one of the most successful master-planned communities for over 30 years is certainly going to attract all that can’t afford to live in this wonderful community. Add Exxon[Mobil], Anadarko and the entire employment base that has transcended The Woodlands into a major central business district, and we have today a vibrant community that increases in population during daytime hours, importing a very high population from the north, east, south and west.

Does the coalition have concerns regarding the impact of an extension of Woodlands Parkway?

This bond, in our opinion, is just the tip of the iceberg for immediate need for The Woodlands. All the county could provide the county commissioners is $350 million to cover what we perceive as a $600 million to $800 million need. That will only grow with imminent future growth and increased cost of construction. No, we don’t have concerns of a negative impact for this expansion of the Woodlands Parkway. All impacts that reduce traffic; get people out of here quicker; and allow the community to get their kids to schools, parks, to dinner, or wherever they need to go is a black-and-white argument to us.

What would you say to those who oppose the extension?

We all love The Woodlands for obvious reasons—so does everybody that doesn’t live within our community. If we are so naïve to think that by not building a road we’re going to slow people down from coming to the community then we need to go back and recheck the facts and apply some logic. The Woodlands is going to keep growing, demand is going to become greater and greater, and these roads are just the tip of the iceberg. You need to support this and get the first phase in. Let’s hope that by supporting our smart commissioners that we can get additional bonds and expand the other roads so that we can truly handle the traffic that is causing negative impacts on all of our lives today.

Why should voters support this bond?

A very important bond failed in 2011. Albeit, we did not agree with the lack of transparency, [but] it was a vital bond. I haven’t heard any factual numbers, however we do know that had they constructed roads in 2012 the cost would have been substantially less then what we are looking at today. The fear tactics used by a handful of people trying to stop the bond is tragic. For all those doing their own homework, I believe the outcome to be a success. Montgomery County is projected to double over the next 20 to 25 years.  We are way behind on mobility, desperately need this bond, and desperately need strong, smart leadership to carry it to the next bond issue and get ahead of this traffic for once and for all.

James NoackWDL-2015-04-g-1-H4

Commissioner, Montgomery County Precinct 3, [email protected]

James Noack has stated in previous interviews with Community Impact Newspaper that he is concerned the opposition shown by residents of The Woodlands to the bond proposal could lead to the bond failing. He was contacted several times by Community Impact Newspaper for this Q&A but did not respond.

What are your concerns about an extension of Woodlands Parkway?

Declined to comment

What concerns do you have should the bond be approved?

Declined to comment

What concerns do you have should be bond not be approved?

Declined to comment

How will the projects in this proposal help traffic in Montgomery County?

Declined to comment

Charlie RileyWDL-2015-04-g-1-H5

Commissioner, Montgomery County Precinct 2, [email protected]

Charlie Riley has proposed $80 million worth of mobility improvements in the $350 million Montgomery County road bond. Among those is $20 million to extend a portion of Woodlands Parkway that is located in Precinct 2 from FM 2978 to Hwy. 249.

Why did you decide to include the Woodlands Parkway extension in the bond proposal, particularly after hearing so much opposition to the project?

I was elected in Precinct 2 to represent and serve Precinct 2 citizens. Overwhelmingly, the majority of my constituents want the Woodlands Parkway extension. Additionally, I would not propose to build a road if I felt it would be detrimental to our neighbors. I have extensively reviewed the engineering studies, and they show that the traffic increase will be minimal. We must also consider that the Woodlands Parkway is a county road meant to benefit the whole county, not just those who live among the current stretch.

One argument against the Woodlands Parkway extension is that it should be built by developers. What is your response to that argument?  

I have always said that I would negotiate with the developers along the Woodlands Parkway. Within the last month we received a commitment from one developer to donate all of the right of way and for the developer to build a four-lane road across his property. On March 13, we met with another landowner and received an agreement for all of their right of way to be donated to the county. We are also in negotiations for them to build the road through their property. At this time we have a verbal commitment for them to do that.

How will this project improve mobility in Montgomery County?

This extension will improve traffic conditions in many areas. First, it will give the residents of Montgomery County another east-west corridor. People on the east side [of Montgomery County] can travel west on the extension to Hwy. 249, then south into Houston or north into the Navasota-College Station area. Residents on the west side [of Montgomery County] can travel east to The Woodlands or access FM 2978. This extension will also relieve traffic on FM 1488 as well as Hardin Store Road.

Why should voters support this bond?  

Everyone needs to get out and vote ‘Yes’ to this bond. A lot of areas throughout this county need relief. It would not be fair to all of our neighbors to vote down this very important bond because of the Woodlands Parkway extension. This is especially true in light of the traffic studies, which show the extension will have a minimal traffic increase in The Woodlands.

Julie TurnerWDL-2015-04-g-1-H6

President, Texas Patriots PAC, [email protected]

Texas Patriots is a political action committee based in The Woodlands aligned with the Tea Party. The Texas Patriots PAC publicly supports and endorses candidates and ballot measures. The organization has announced that it does not support the Montgomery County road bond proposal.

Why is the Texas Patriots PAC opposing this proposal?

Montgomery County urgently needs traffic congestion relief throughout the county. Commissioners identified over $1 billion in mobility projects, and only the most critical problems can be addressed. As proposed this bond includes projects that do not solve traffic problems. For example, the Woodlands Parkway extension is a $22 million project that primarily benefits developers. It turns Woodlands Parkway into FM 1960, creating noise pollution [and] triggering 12-foot concrete walls along the road. Instead of creating this crisis, imagine how much better the intersections at FM 1488 and FM 1774 in Magnolia could be with $22 million in additional funding. Commissioner [Charlie] Riley could dramatically speed up that project by bringing his own budget to help leverage TxDOT dollars. Also, $11 million is allocated in Precinct 1 for miscellaneous street repairs. Voters don’t like blank checks, and maintenance is a poor use of debt. Put the money where it helps the most.

What would need to happen in order for the Texas Patriots PAC to support the proposal?

This proposal should include only the priority projects addressing the worst traffic problems throughout the county. Choosing the priority projects is made more difficult because Commissioners Court has never created a countywide mobility plan. Only Precinct 3 has a mobility plan showing which roads will be expanded or created and when. We need a countywide mobility plan so that Montgomery County can thoughtfully prepare for more people and businesses moving in. Also, Commissioners Court has stated that this bond will not increase taxes, but no numbers to support that claim have been released. It’s like hearing from the salesman that we can afford the car and that we should sign without asking about the terms. With daily announcements that companies are laying off workers or putting projects on hold, should we really assume growth at the same rate we’ve been enjoying? Alternatively, if commissioners can justify more projects and can demonstrate the county’s ability to pay off the debt, why isn’t the bond larger? Pick the most necessary projects and publicly justify the cost.

What concerns do you have should the bond be approved?

Voters should know that if this bond fails, Commissioners Court can and should reissue the bond, without the wasteful projects, at their very next meeting. It can be placed on the November ballot. We would enthusiastically support an improved road bond without the pork and [one] that we can afford. We may support the Conroe ISD bond, also on the November ballot, if their proposal is responsible and debt repayment is reasonable.

What concerns do you have if the bond is not approved?

Mobility issues in our county must be addressed responsibly. Should the bond fail, voters will have spoken. Our public servants who sit on Commissioners Court should hear their constituents and quickly make wise choices to alleviate our worst traffic problems.