Guest Plastic Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I was discussing with someone today, and they were saying that it takes upto 25 just to get out of The Woodlands. Now it takes 25 minutes to get DOwntown from there. Half you trip is just getting out of your neighborhood.They did a flyover and overpass on WOodlands Parkway, but that's not enough. I always thought that The Grand Parkway should go through The Woodlands. COnver WOodlands Dr/PKWY into the Grand Pkwy. Ir's crazy cause it rides just south of The Woodlands and then goes North of Kingwood. If you know how Kingwood and The WOodlans are made in respect to one another it would be just as easy to make the Grand Pkwy go trhough the WOodlands and Kingwood. It would make more sense trafficwise.Then there's Sugarland, even if youu tune d HWY6 into afreeway it wouldn't help going DOwntown. It slants away from it. SO I wonder how in the hell do you people byw HWY6 and 1092 get out of your subdivision. WIth all the lights and traffic it mustt ake half your trip also. CLear Lake has it a little better. They're building that small highway that goes to and from NASA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 there isn't enough right of way on woodlands parkway. there would have to be exits every couple of miles. condemning the greenspace (owned by the development company), homes and businesses along the woodlands parkway would be cost prohibitive. it is much easier to cut through a few neighborhoods and plenty of empty land south of the woodlands rather than open the pandora's box that would be attempting to run it through the densely populated woodlands.it does not take 25 minutes to get out of the woodlands if you live in grogan's mill, panther creek, harper's landing or college park. parts of cochran's crossing, indian springs, sterling ridge, carlton woods and alden bridge, on the other hand, can take more than 25 minutes.the idea of the grand parkway is not to move people in or through the woodlands but to move people from the north side to the northwest and west side. the grand parkway segment going in south of the woodlands will benefit some residents of the woodlands; however, it will not have exits convenient for the majority of residents who do commute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Badly planed in my opinion. The Grand Parkway is going to be another Westpark Tollway...without the convenient exits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Well they need to build a few roads to The Grandparkway from the far parts of The WOodlands. The Grand Pkwy can't possibly get as packed as The Westpark TW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) i think that kuykendahl/gosling would be a necessary exit, although i've heard the exits are predetermined and rather distant from one another. who knows how it will benefit woodlands parkway traffic. Edited April 6, 2007 by bachanon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 It will get congested, which is actually a very good reason not to build it at all. Building it through empty and undeveloped land will promise that it will get overdeveloped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) oh come on. if it is crowded when it is first built, it is because it was needed. try blocking off a blood vein that needs to expand and see what happens.it isn't as if the congestion happens because the road is built! that's absurd.if there is flooding in an area and someone builds a channel to relieve the flooding, is the relief channel to blame for the rush of water? i think not.you cannot ignore growth by not building roads and hope the demand will disappear. Edited April 6, 2007 by bachanon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Atleast someone understands. Maybe they could build overpasses all the way down Woodlands Parkway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) Maybe they should build it north of the Woodlands. It is too cramped where it is suppose to go, now.Wrong section, too. Edited April 6, 2007 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENGcons Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 there isn't enough right of way on woodlands parkway. there would have to be exits every couple of miles. condemning the greenspace (owned by the development company), homes and businesses along the woodlands parkway would be cost prohibitive. it is much easier to cut through a few neighborhoods and plenty of empty land south of the woodlands rather than open the pandora's box that would be attempting to run it through the densely populated woodlands.it does not take 25 minutes to get out of the woodlands if you live in grogan's mill, panther creek, harper's landing or college park. parts of cochran's crossing, indian springs, sterling ridge, carlton woods and alden bridge, on the other hand, can take more than 25 minutes.the idea of the grand parkway is not to move people in or through the woodlands but to move people from the north side to the northwest and west side. the grand parkway segment going in south of the woodlands will benefit some residents of the woodlands; however, it will not have exits convenient for the majority of residents who do commute.I disagree with this logic. The current location also does nto have sufficient ROW, it condems established neighborhoods to create it especially in the F2 segment. Not to mention the neighborhoods that will now have this road 100 feet from their homes, thus destrying propoerty value. But apparantly developers have more say thatn home owners. And as far as cost prohibitive this project is by no means the poster boy for efficient spending, and it will only get worse. That plenty of empty land you speak of is mostly owned by other developers, KISD, or people who intend to build on it, or land owners who intend on making money off the sale to the GPA. The location not being furhter north is striclty because the people in the Woodlands apparantly have more political stout than the people in Spring who also don't want it. Follow the money and you will see why the road is being built where it is being built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfootball Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) It seems logical for it to go through The Woodlands. Edited April 6, 2007 by mrfootball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) running the grand parkway through the woodlands would require running it through the city of oak ridge north as well. you would have to condemn five and six story office buildings coming through town center and grogan's mill, there are neighborhoods within fifty feet on both sides of the parkway and loads of retail. you might as well run the grand parkway down 2920 or louetta. you would have just as much opposition. The location not being further north is striclty because the people in the Woodlands apparantly have more political stout than the people in Spring who also don't want it. Follow the money and you will see why the road is being built where it is being built.it has more to do with what is feasible than who has the political pull or money. the woodlands parkway has never been an option. to say that it isn't going where the woodlands doesn't want it is to assume that it was a possibility. it hasn't been and isn't a proposed corridor.It seems logical for it to go through The Woodlands.please explain how it would be logical? Edited April 6, 2007 by bachanon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfootball Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) How would the existing proposed path be logical? There's not even a damned road there.Why not run it right through the heart of one of the hottest communities in the country where so much growth is occuring? Edited April 6, 2007 by mrfootball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 You forgot my other statements. also said it shoudl go through Kingwood. THere's alotof space down Kingwood Dr. It would also give another way to get across Lake Houston.Then I mentioned Sugarland and Clearlake . How long does it take you to get out o those areas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) How would the existing proposed path be logical? There's not even a damned road there.Why not run it right through the heart of one of the hottest communities in the country where so much growth is occuring?There really isn't enough room on the Woodlands Parkway. Bachanon is right. There is room between the Woodlands and Conroe, though. I think that would be the best option.If plans for growth had occured a bit sooner, I bet the Woodlands Parkway would be a freeway all the way through, as it should be. Could you imagine trying to get out of Cinco Ranch if the Grand Parkway was a boulevard like the Woodlands Parkway? Edited April 6, 2007 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 WHat's traffic liek in Cinco Ranch. I'm considering moving there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 It is slow at I-10 and the Grand Parkway. That is the real only hotspot. The Grand Parkway has a lot of volume on it, but it isn't bumper to bumper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I was discussing with someone today, and they were saying that it takes upto 25 just to get out of The Woodlands. Now it takes 25 minutes to get DOwntown from there. Half you trip is just getting out of your neighborhood.It takes 25 minutes from spring... unless your doing well over 120mph, half the trip is not getting out of your neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Explain that better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 It takes 25 minutes from spring... unless your doing well over 120mph, half the trip is not getting out of your neighborhood. Montrose, why do you even bother with him. . . He is not worth the effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Come on, why the hate on Plastic? He didn't do anything wrong (just posted the thread in the wrong section). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Come on, why the hate on Plastic? He didn't do anything wrong (just posted the thread in the wrong section).Well, that and the fact he really does have some grammar and spelling issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I don't think English is his first language. He use to be worse than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 It takes 25 minutes from spring... unless your doing well over 120mph, half the trip is not getting out of your neighborhood.Well if it takes 25 minutes just to get out of The Woodlands. Then atleast another 25 to get Downtown. Then half your trip is just getting out of your suburb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy76 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 How would the existing proposed path be logical? There's not even a damned road there.Why not run it right through the heart of one of the hottest communities in the country where so much growth is occuring?Hey, why not run it through the middle of Longwood? Oh, because it is an existing community and we don't go around throwing freeways in the middle of them do we?seriously though this post is ridiculous isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I saw this editorial today in the Chronicle.Transportation expert Robert Dunphy at the Urban Land Institute predicted it would be a sprawl magnet: "Building an outer belt is so 1970s."So is Houston over 30 years behind the rest of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENGcons Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Hey, why not run it through the middle of Longwood? Oh, because it is an existing community and we don't go around throwing freeways in the middle of them do we?seriously though this post is ridiculous isn't it?Actually th e GPA is doing this very thing in the F-2 segment. There are some neighborhoods that have been there for 30 years that the road is going to cut right through. These people will be forced to move, and the neighborhoods destroyed. The reason they will not use 2920 as the ROW is because there is more money to be made on the current plan, by either people who own the land to be sold to the GPA, or developers who stands to increase property values of commercial land along the current path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.