Flooding In Downtown From Hurricane Harvey

[bobruss]

I will try again with my thoughts about the Houston flooding mitigation. I'm not an engineer nor do I have the data, but it seems there are several things that could be done to help. Im not talking about a Harvey type storm. There's just no way around what happened with the amount of water that fell over that period of time. I don't think the  Buffalo and Brays watersheds received 50". That was on the East side of town. If the west side had received the amounts that the east side of downtown over towards Dayton had I think both Addicks and Barker would have failed and we would all be digging out and the whole city would have been in shelters in Dallas, New Orleans, and Austin.

These are some thoughts on things, so don't go all crazy about details. There just some observations.

White Oak Buffalo confluence

1. Move it to the east side. Go ahead with the proposed  White Oak bayou cut off just north of  U. of Houston and downtown, creating an island north of the court buildings over to the area east of downtown and enlarge the relatively open area  up into a retention lake/park on the east side . I believe the side where the Hardy toll road and 59 all the way to Wayside has a relatively open area that would be perfect for creating an incredibly large detention pond that would allow those two bayous to meet on the east side . It would  also mitigate the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo right on the western side of downtown. 

The old buildings along Buffalo bayou just east of U. of H. and the current confluence with White Oak in north downtown create a bottle neck with no place  to go but up and out of its banks.  If the confluence wasnt on the west side but instead the east side only half of the water would have to go through that narrow area. 

I know there are some industrial complexes and small neighborhoods on the east side but were talking about some seriously detrimental things that if left unresolved could make Houston undesirable.  Buy out the closest homes and warehouses and fix this issue.

 

Barker/ Addick reservoirs

2. Since the damage has already been done to what once was a natural drainage system on the western most side of Houston  something else needs to be tried.

A very large scale drainage bayou running north to south on the west side of Barker and Addicks that would run all the way to the Gulf. Yes much bigger than L.A.'s canal I used as an example earlier. This would take pressure off of everything on the west side. It would start north of the Cypress creek watershed to catch that water and perhaps some of the White Oak watershed. Sure some people would be displaced  and right of ways wouldn't be easy but it would bring a lot of relief to a large portion of our population. It would take away stress for people who live below Addicks and Barker.

Also finish the improvements to both dams.

 

3. 288 & MacGregor

Whoever designed the 288 overpass at Brays Bayou should be fired. Why build a freeway on grade with the banks of a major  bayou that floods. The feeders are at least 15 feet above the lanes of 288.

That area should be widened and deepened and enlarged as a detention area. If designed right it could hold much more water and slow down the current.

If you look at the freeway from MacGregor on the Herman park side,  you will notice that until you get to the actual bridge the banks of the bayou are sloped back at a roughly 45 degree angle to the sidewalks and streets N. and S. MacGregor until you get to the bridge. There is no sloping angle at the bridge. Just a concrete wall. So all of the water that has been flowing in the angled grassy part of the bayou above the concreted section  where much more water  flows is forced to gather and rise due to the bottle neck. They should re-engineer that section of 288 into a large long viaduct that rises much higher than the current grade level.  Enlarge the area and create a huge lake parkland with marshes and detention area.Not only would it solve some of the major issue on Brays it would also create a great gathering place for the multitudes of waterfowl that seem to love Brays bayou. This would help keep the med center from flooding and probably alleviate some of Meyerlands flooding. It could become an extension of Herman park for the east side of 288, when not holding water like the detention ponds on Brays out west. Tell HEB they cant have the land and incorporate that land into the detention area. I'm talking about a large scale big dig kind

of project .

These three projects would help to alleviate quite a bit of water in some of our most prone areas of flooding. 

If we don't do them its not going to get any better and then they should seriously think about moving the theater district to the southeastern part of downtown,

in close proximity to Toyota/G.R. Brown area.

Again these are just some suggestions to think about. I'm not a hydrologist.

[gmac]

35 minutes ago, bobruss said:

Barker/ Addick reservoirs

2. Since the damage has already been done to what once was a natural drainage system on the western most side of Houston  something else needs to be tried.

A very large scale drainage bayou running north to south on the west side of Barker and Addicks that would run all the way to the Gulf. Yes much bigger than L.A.'s canal I used as an example earlier. This would take pressure off of everything on the west side. It would start north of the Cypress creek watershed to catch that water and perhaps some of the White Oak watershed. Sure some people would be displaced  and right of ways wouldn't be easy but it would bring a lot of relief to a large portion of our population. It would take away stress for people who live below Addicks and Barker.

Also finish the improvements to both dams.

 

How would such a drainage bayou navigate the Brazos? It would have to cross it at some point, yes?

Another reservoir might be a better solution on the far west side.

[Ross]

In 3 days, the amount of water in Addicks and Barker combined went from 0 to 385,000 acre feet. That's enough water to cover 600 square miles a foot deep, and an average of 5300 acre feet per hour, or just over 64,000 cubic feet per second. Any drainage channel to handle even half that would have to be the size of the Brazos, and there's no good place to build an outlet to the Gulf.

[IronTiger]

4 hours ago, bobruss said:

3. 288 & MacGregor

Whoever designed the 288 overpass at Brays Bayou should be fired. Why build a freeway on grade with the banks of a major  bayou that floods. The feeders are at least 15 feet above the lanes of 288.

That area should be widened and deepened and enlarged as a detention area. If designed right it could hold much more water and slow down the current.

If you look at the freeway from MacGregor on the Herman park side,  you will notice that until you get to the actual bridge the banks of the bayou are sloped back at a roughly 45 degree angle to the sidewalks and streets N. and S. MacGregor until you get to the bridge. There is no sloping angle at the bridge. Just a concrete wall. So all of the water that has been flowing in the angled grassy part of the bayou above the concreted section  where much more water  flows is forced to gather and rise due to the bottle neck. They should re-engineer that section of 288 into a large long viaduct that rises much higher than the current grade level.  Enlarge the area and create a huge lake parkland with marshes and detention area.Not only would it solve some of the major issue on Brays it would also create a great gathering place for the multitudes of waterfowl that seem to love Brays bayou. This would help keep the med center from flooding and probably alleviate some of Meyerlands flooding. It could become an extension of Herman park for the east side of 288, when not holding water like the detention ponds on Brays out west. Tell HEB they cant have the land and incorporate that land into the detention area. I'm talking about a large scale big dig kind

of project .

These three projects would help to alleviate quite a bit of water in some of our most prone areas of flooding. 

If we don't do them its not going to get any better and then they should seriously think about moving the theater district to the southeastern part of downtown,

in close proximity to Toyota/G.R. Brown area.

Again these are just some suggestions to think about. I'm not a hydrologist.

 

288 as it is is not a new freeway and the engineer is probably long gone. It is the "newest" freeway in terms of being built new that's not on the far outskirts of town or one where the frontage roads were built years before the fact. 288 is sunken inner-loop, probably due to neighborhood impact reasons (originally, elevated was considered lower-impact but at some point toward the end of the "freeway era" that changed). To go over Brays Bayou as you were proposing would've required an even bigger bridge and would create the problem that I-45 faces near the Pierce where it becomes a giant ramp to go over and then under again. 288's flooding wasn't as problematic as Beltway 8's flooding was, and from the looks of it, all the flooded highways (due to high water) were reopened quickly, with the exception of Beltway 8.

[cspwal]

Also, 288 flooding provides a nice emergency drainage ditch for the area

[IronTiger]

On 9/17/2017 at 11:22 PM, Triton said:

 

Indeed.

 

 

Omni Hotel north of the Galleria by Marc longoria, on Flickr

Trying to get a direction here. Appears to be from the west (since we aren't talking about the Omni on I-10, and the holdouts on Blackhaw are probably regretting not selling sooner) but from that direction (based on the curve on the building) wouldn't be visible because of a building/parking garage attached to the right of the hotel, unless the building to the right is attached to the hotel (doubtful--isn't that the Skyhouse visible from 610?)

[bobruss]

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

Also, 288 flooding provides a nice emergency drainage ditch for the area

I agree 100% with this. That was my point. Build a taller higher freeway, and keep the basin and even enlarge

it so it can contain more water like some of the detention ponds out on the western side of Brays. There is a huge piece of property on the east side of 288 and North of McGregor that HEB is looking at. Add that to the detention area. It would be a bridge like you go over in Louisiana to get to New Orleans through the swamps and rivers. I'm sure if people have the choice of having a freeway overpass and not have to constantly worry about going under  they might not mind the overpass. Also the other important part of my suggestion is the width of the opening between the concrete sides of the overpass at 288 which now as designed constricts the flow of water above the concrete portion of the bayou, which carries the largest volume of water, and creates a huge bottleneck backing water up into the med center.

[bobruss]

19 hours ago, gmac said:

 

How would such a drainage bayou navigate the Brazos? It would have to cross it at some point, yes?

Another reservoir might be a better solution on the far west side.

That would be great. I'm just trying to present ideas. Look the problem I see with the western side of Houston are not going to get any better due to all of the development on that land. There probably aren't any large parcels out there that would be in the right place to capture significant amounts of water in those watersheds. They have developed all around the two existing reservoirs. I also understand that the Brazos presents problems but the Dutch seem to be able to overcome huge problem. Sure the drainage ditch would have to be big.  Maybe it could be used as an outlet for the two reservoirs that are already there. I'm talking a Big Dig type construction project for the preservation of this great city. Is Houston's future growth worth it, and will major corporations like Amazon even  consider Houston as a viable place for its employees to work and live. 

We have to do something about this or we will not be the job magnet of the future.

I can't remember where it was, but somewhere in Europe they built a canal that goes over a river so large shipping tankers can navigate it.

Its like an elevated canal. Now if the can come up with something like that surely we can too. 

If you think Houston's future growth and stability are worth it.

Or we can just sit around and complain. Thats why I'm just trying to put out some ides, for some real discussion.

People don't like to have their homes flooded their values depreciated and the chances of selling those home almost impossible.

It happens regularly and it will deter companies from relocating here instead to higher ground in Dallas and Austin.
 

[IronTiger]

3 hours ago, bobruss said:

I agree 100% with this. That was my point. Build a taller higher freeway, and keep the basin and even enlarge

it so it can contain more water like some of the detention ponds out on the western side of Brays. There is a huge piece of property on the east side of 288 and North of McGregor that HEB is looking at. Add that to the detention area. It would be a bridge like you go over in Louisiana to get to New Orleans through the swamps and rivers. I'm sure if people have the choice of having a freeway overpass and not have to constantly worry about going under  they might not mind the overpass. Also the other important part of my suggestion is the width of the opening between the concrete sides of the overpass at 288 which now as designed constricts the flow of water above the concrete portion of the bayou, which carries the largest volume of water, and creates a huge bottleneck backing water up into the med center.

Yeah, but adding a taller bridge would be getting rid of the sunken part of 288, unless you wanted to create a two-story viaduct where there's just nothing underneath except for hobo encampments I guess. And bringing up the Atchafalaya River Basin bridge is irrelevant since 288's not going to be flooded 99.999% of the time. The floodwaters are going to recede and it didn't permanently change the landscape by having areas underwater stay underwater forever. Also, bringing up the Big Dig as a positive comparison to anything is a terrible idea.

[bobruss]

On September 19, 2017 at 4:11 PM, gmac said:

 

How would such a drainage bayou navigate the Brazos? It would have to cross it at some point, yes?

Another reservoir might be a better solution on the far west side.

That would be great. I'm just trying to present ideas. Look the problem I see with the western side of Houston are not going to get any better due to all of the development on that land. There probably aren't any large parcels out there that would be in the right place to capture significant amounts of water in those watersheds. They have developed all around the two existing reservoirs. I also understand that the Brazos presents problems but the Dutch seem to be able to overcome huge problem. Sure the drainage ditch would have to be big.  Maybe it could be used as an outlet for the two reservoirs that are already there. I'm talking a Big Dig type construction project for the preservation of this great city. Is Houston's future growth worth it, and will major corporations like Amazon even  consider Houston as a viable place for its employees to work and live. 

We have to do something about this or we will not be the job magnet of the future.

I can't remember where it was, but somewhere in Europe they built a canal that goes over a river so large shipping tankers can navigate it.

Its like an elevated canal. Now if the can come up with something like that surely we can too. 

If you think Houston's future growth and stability are worth it.

Or we can just sit around and complain. Thats why I'm just trying to put out some ides, for some real discussion.

People don't like to have their homes flooded their values depreciated and the chances of selling those home almost impossible.

It happens regularly and it will deter companies from relocating here instead to higher ground in Dallas and Austin.
 

[bobruss]

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

Yeah, but adding a taller bridge would be getting rid of the sunken part of 288, unless you wanted to create a two-story viaduct where there's just

nothing underneath except for hobo encampments I guess. And bringing up the Atchafalaya River Basin bridge is irrelevant since 288's not going to be flooded 99.999% of the time. The floodwaters are going to recede and it didn't permanently change the landscape by having areas underwater stay underwater forever. Also, bringing up the Big Dig as a positive comparison to anything is a terrible idea.

Exactly get rid of the freeway lanes at bank level and leave the space for parkland. I didn't say anything about getting rid of the basin below.

And obviously you don't know what kind of damage that is done in the med center when the bayou backs up there.

Unfortunately the med center had a natural drainage area that drained quite bit of that area before the med center was ever built.

They didn't take that into consideration when they built it on that land.

Did you realize that there was water in part of M.D. Anderson's lobby 2 weeks ago they have been pumping water

out of the underground systems at Holcombe and Bertner since the storm. 

Why would you want a freeway that is going to be submerged everytime it floods.

Some of you get so wrapped up on the wrong things. I simply used the big dig to emphasize what a large project it might be. 

This is one of several very serious problems that Houston is facing in the future and sometimes it takes really big projects to solve them.

And one other thing about your snarky comment about hobos under the bridge. They're there already.

I haven't seen any one even make any suggestion or offer solutions. Just a bunch of people taking pot shots at ideas to try and help solve this

serious issue that Houston will have to solve to stay competitive for the future.

I used to think this was a site where you could discuss issues about things and have a healthy discussion. It looks more like a place for people just

criticize instead of offering a dialog. 

 

[bobruss]

On September 19, 2017 at 4:11 PM, gmac said:

 

How would such a drainage bayou navigate the Brazos? It would have to cross it at some point, yes?

Another reservoir might be a better solution on the far west side.

I can't provide a picture due to technical issues, but if you google Magdeburg water bridge in Germany, you will see an example of what could be done, but like Ross is quick to point out it would have to be much larger.

Sometimes you have to think outside the box to solve really big problems and until we solve this flooding issue we are going to continue to have more and more  people losing everything.

If someone can provide the image I would appreciate it. Its really quite a technical solution.

[gmac]

2 hours ago, bobruss said:

I can't provide a picture due to technical issues, but if you google Magdeburg water bridge in Germany, you will see an example of what could be done, but like Ross is quick to point out it would have to be much larger.

Sometimes you have to think outside the box to solve really big problems and until we solve this flooding issue we are going to continue to have more and more  people losing everything.

If someone can provide the image I would appreciate it. Its really quite a technical solution.

On 9/19/2017 at 3:34 PM, bobruss said:

 

 

This is a transportation canal. It is 32m wide and 4.25m deep. Someone more versed in mathematics than I will have to calculate what that means as far as capacity.

 

[Ross]

If I did the math right, a canal that size would have to move water at 8mph to handle the peak release from Addicks and Barker. That's pretty quick for moving water, and very dangerous. The canals in California have grab ropes installed in case someone falls in, and their velocities are lower than that. With no extra rain, it would take 13 days to carry off the water that was in Addicks and Barker. I rounded the canal size to 100 feet wide and 12 feet deep. In reality, any canal we build will have to be 12 feet deep or less to get water to the Gulf, due to topography issues. That means to handle any sizable water volumes quickly, you would need a canal 300 feet or more wide and 12 feet deep. I'm not sure that's economically, or ecologically feasible.

[samagon]

23 hours ago, bobruss said:

Exactly get rid of the freeway lanes at bank level and leave the space for parkland. I didn't say anything about getting rid of the basin below.

And obviously you don't know what kind of damage that is done in the med center when the bayou backs up there.

Unfortunately the med center had a natural drainage area that drained quite bit of that area before the med center was ever built.

They didn't take that into consideration when they built it on that land.

Did you realize that there was water in part of M.D. Anderson's lobby 2 weeks ago they have been pumping water

out of the underground systems at Holcombe and Bertner since the storm. 

Why would you want a freeway that is going to be submerged everytime it floods.

Some of you get so wrapped up on the wrong things. I simply used the big dig to emphasize what a large project it might be. 

This is one of several very serious problems that Houston is facing in the future and sometimes it takes really big projects to solve them.

And one other thing about your snarky comment about hobos under the bridge. They're there already.

I haven't seen any one even make any suggestion or offer solutions. Just a bunch of people taking pot shots at ideas to try and help solve this

serious issue that Houston will have to solve to stay competitive for the future.

I used to think this was a site where you could discuss issues about things and have a healthy discussion. It looks more like a place for people just

criticize instead of offering a dialog. 

 

 

The bayous need wider channels that are a consistent width the whole length (well, consistent, but getting wider as they near the mouth). detention ponds only serve to provide a place for water to sit, vs a wider channel that allows the water to stay within the banks and flow downstream.

 

so the areas that habitually flood, downtown and med center. something needs to be done to widen the channels at those places. canals may be the answer in downtown to help the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo, but along Braes, I think buying out buildings that are within a certain number of feet down the entire stretch of the bayou might be an expensive option, but it's the best option, lower the slope of the concrete channel (or better yet, get rid of the concrete lining) to accept more water into the bayou itself.

 

On 9/20/2017 at 9:41 AM, IronTiger said:

Trying to get a direction here. Appears to be from the west (since we aren't talking about the Omni on I-10, and the holdouts on Blackhaw are probably regretting not selling sooner) but from that direction (based on the curve on the building) wouldn't be visible because of a building/parking garage attached to the right of the hotel, unless the building to the right is attached to the hotel (doubtful--isn't that the Skyhouse visible from 610?)

 

it's near 610 and woodway, that omni, not the one on i10 and eldridge. the photo is taken looking east.

 

On 9/20/2017 at 11:40 AM, bobruss said:

 

I can't remember where it was, but somewhere in Europe they built a canal that goes over a river so large shipping tankers can navigate it.

Its like an elevated canal. Now if the can come up with something like that surely we can too. 

 

 

The canal you're referencing is specifically for shipping only, it provides no benefit to drainage. there are locks and things to help the boats navigate.

[Triton]

On 9/17/2017 at 11:22 PM, Triton said:

 

Indeed.

 

 

Omni Hotel north of the Galleria by Marc longoria, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

On 9/20/2017 at 9:41 AM, IronTiger said:

Trying to get a direction here. Appears to be from the west (since we aren't talking about the Omni on I-10, and the holdouts on Blackhaw are probably regretting not selling sooner) but from that direction (based on the curve on the building) wouldn't be visible because of a building/parking garage attached to the right of the hotel, unless the building to the right is attached to the hotel (doubtful--isn't that the Skyhouse visible from 610?)

 

This is how it usually looks.

 

 

This is looking southeast towards 610. This would be after exiting Woodway.

[IronTiger]

On 9/20/2017 at 4:48 PM, bobruss said:

Exactly get rid of the freeway lanes at bank level and leave the space for parkland. I didn't say anything about getting rid of the basin below.

And obviously you don't know what kind of damage that is done in the med center when the bayou backs up there.

Unfortunately the med center had a natural drainage area that drained quite bit of that area before the med center was ever built.

They didn't take that into consideration when they built it on that land.

Did you realize that there was water in part of M.D. Anderson's lobby 2 weeks ago they have been pumping water

out of the underground systems at Holcombe and Bertner since the storm. 

Why would you want a freeway that is going to be submerged everytime it floods.

Some of you get so wrapped up on the wrong things. I simply used the big dig to emphasize what a large project it might be. 

This is one of several very serious problems that Houston is facing in the future and sometimes it takes really big projects to solve them.

And one other thing about your snarky comment about hobos under the bridge. They're there already.

I haven't seen any one even make any suggestion or offer solutions. Just a bunch of people taking pot shots at ideas to try and help solve this

serious issue that Houston will have to solve to stay competitive for the future.

I used to think this was a site where you could discuss issues about things and have a healthy discussion. It looks more like a place for people just

criticize instead of offering a dialog. 

 

 

Just because we can discuss things doesn't mean you're immune from criticism. I didn't make any ad hominem attacks either. Here are the big problems with it, and feel free to defend these without shrugging them off as "potshots".

 

First, if the freeway already is sunken in its present state, then it wouldn't fix flooding in the Med Center, it would only save the freeway from being flooded. And if the city is disabled from flooding, having an open freeway wouldn't matter that much, and that's what the frontage roads are for. Finally, despite the high waters, 288 cleared out rather quickly. You are basically asking to create a massive project to save a freeway from maybe two days of flooding in a rare historic flood event. Additionally, flow would change due to all the columns in the water, either displace more water outwards and upwards or slow the flow (I'm not that well-versed in water physics, but either way, it would make drainage outflow more of a problem).

 

Secondly, no one builds parks under freeways anymore, due to noise, pollution, and other factors, so no one would want to go there if it's just an unmaintained undeveloped area under the freeway and would be expensive to maintain.

 

Thirdly, an unmaintained, undeveloped area would become a magnet for the homeless and crime, moreso than any under-freeway space in Houston. It would be like Seattle's Jungle, an unsafe crime-infested haven, which would be even worse for everyone living along 288 to deal with in addition to the additional noise from a new elevated freeway. Furthermore, if floods were in fact a more common occurrence, everyone living under there will perish. Even if you were a sociopath and that was the end-game, it would still be an incredibly convoluted and expensive plan.

[samagon]

sorry, I hit refresh 

[samagon]

too much refresh.

[bobruss]

On September 21, 2017 at 4:33 PM, samagon said:

 

The bayous need wider channels that are a consistent width the whole length (well, consistent, but getting wider as they near the mouth). detention ponds only serve to provide a place for water to sit, vs a wider channel that allows the water to stay within the banks and flow downstream.

 

so the areas that habitually flood, downtown and med center. something needs to be done to widen the channels at those places. canals may be the answer in downtown to help the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo, but along Braes, I think buying out buildings that are within a certain number of feet down the entire stretch of the bayou might be an expensive option, but it's the best option, lower the slope of the concrete channel (or better yet, get rid of the concrete lining) to accept more water into the bayou itself.

 

 

it's near 610 and woodway, that omni, not the one on i10 and eldridge. the photo is taken looking east.

 

 

The canal you're referencing is specifically for shipping only, it provides no benefit to drainage. there are locks and things to help the boats navigate.

I was just using that as an example for GMAC as to how some have navigated crossing a river. They used an elevated canal to go over the river.

I will say again I'm not a hydrologist or an engineer. I am someone who was just trying to offer some ideas on moving water out of Houston.Obviously I don't have the capabilities of Ross or Iron Tiger or any of you, but I at least am offering suggestions. I didn't use this as an example of drainage but merely as a structural element that in another ay could possibly help mitigate. I don't think there is one solution that will solve all of the flooding issues . It will take a lot of separate pieces, but unless someone starts thinking outside the box the box is going to fill up with water.

[bobruss]

On September 21, 2017 at 4:33 PM, samagon said:

 

The bayous need wider channels that are a consistent width the whole length (well, consistent, but getting wider as they near the mouth). detention ponds only serve to provide a place for water to sit, vs a wider channel that allows the water to stay within the banks and flow downstream.

 

so the areas that habitually flood, downtown and med center. something needs to be done to widen the channels at those places. canals may be the answer in downtown to help the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo, but along Braes, I think buying out buildings that are within a certain number of feet down the entire stretch of the bayou might be an expensive option, but it's the best option, lower the slope of the concrete channel (or better yet, get rid of the concrete lining) to accept more water into the bayou itself.

 

 

it's near 610 and woodway, that omni, not the one on i10 and eldridge. the photo is taken looking east.

 

 

The canal you're referencing is specifically for shipping only, it provides no benefit to drainage. there are locks and things to help the boats navigate.

I was just using that as an example for GMAC as to how some have navigated crossing a river. They used an elevated canal to go over the river.

I will say again I'm not a hydrologist or an engineer. I am someone who was just trying to offer some ideas on moving water out of Houston.Obviously I don't have the capabilities of Ross or Iron Tiger or any of you, but I at least am offering suggestions. I didn't use this as an example of drainage but merely as a structural element used in another way could possibly help mitigate. I don't think there is one solution that will solve all of the flooding issues . It will take a lot of separate pieces, but unless someone starts thinking outside the box the box is going to fill up with water.

[bobruss]

On September 21, 2017 at 5:41 PM, IronTiger said:

 

Just because we can discuss things doesn't mean you're immune from criticism. I didn't make any ad hominem attacks either. Here are the big problems with it, and feel free to defend these without shrugging them off as "potshots".

 

First, if the freeway already is sunken in its present state, then it wouldn't fix flooding in the Med Center, it would only save the freeway from being flooded. And if the city is disabled from flooding, having an open freeway wouldn't matter that much, and that's what the frontage roads are for. Finally, despite the high waters, 288 cleared out rather quickly. You are basically asking to create a massive project to save a freeway from maybe two days of flooding in a rare historic flood event. Additionally, flow would change due to all the columns in the water, either displace more water outwards and upwards or slow the flow (I'm not that well-versed in water physics, but either way, it would make drainage outflow more of a problem).

 

Secondly, no one builds parks under freeways anymore, due to noise, pollution, and other factors, so no one would want to go there if it's just an unmaintained undeveloped area under the freeway and would be expensive to maintain.

 

Thirdly, an unmaintained, undeveloped area would become a magnet for the homeless and crime, moreso than any under-freeway space in Houston. It would be like Seattle's Jungle, an unsafe crime-infested haven, which would be even worse for everyone living along 288 to deal with in addition to the additional noise from a new elevated freeway. Furthermore, if floods were in fact a more common occurrence, everyone living under there will perish. Even if you were a sociopath and that was the end-game, it would still be an incredibly convoluted and expensive plan.

Iron Tiger

You are either not reading what I said or you just want to argue. I'm trying to come up with a solution to end the flooding in that whole area.  If you actually go to the 288 and McGregor and drive down Mcgregor to Almeda you can see what I'm talking about.  I pass over it at least 8 times a day. I don't really care if the freeway floods or not. You can't get off of them anyway. Its the way this freeway is constructed that is the present problem and it adds to the flooding in the med center and maybe as far back as Meyerland. They have created a serious bottleneck at the Almeda bridge the feeder bridges  and the freeway overpasses by the way they built the structural bases which constrict the flow of the upper level of the non cemented grassy part of the bayou where most of the water flows.

In other words once the water gets above the concrete where it slopes up at about 45 degrees to the street when it gets to both Almeda and 288 they have cut off the grassy part of the bayou with concrete bunkers that hold up the roadbed constricting the flow and capacity. I'm not trying to be rude but I want you to understand the situation and why Im suggesting that they raise the roadbeds of the freeways and rebuild the structural element of both Almeda and 288. Thats why I suggested a higher roadbed for 288.

 

As far as parks under freeways go you're just flat wrong. Im not suggesting a park under the freeway but a dual retention pond on the east side of 288 that would double as parkland like all of the retention ponds that serve a dual role on the western end of Brays. If your not familiar with the retention ponds here is the link to the project.

https://www.projectbrays.org/press-room/current-news/2007/02/arthur-storey-park-stormwater-detention-basin-receives-h-gac-regional-excellence-award/`

 

 If they did raise the roadbeds of the freeway over the bayou watershed they could widen the bayou on the eastern edge of Herman park .  Reclaim the property on the north side of the bayou east of 288 so they could make an even larger parkland retention area. 

 

I believe that Buffalo Bayou park goes under 45 and Pierce elevated and Houston Avenue  multiple lanes of overhead traffic as wide as 288. 

I meant for the park to actually be east of 288.

 

 

 

[IronTiger]

6 hours ago, bobruss said:

Iron Tiger

You are either not reading what I said or you just want to argue. I'm trying to come up with a solution to end the flooding in that whole area.  If you actually go to the 288 and McGregor and drive down Mcgregor to Almeda you can see what I'm talking about.  I pass over it at least 8 times a day. I don't really care if the freeway floods or not. You can't get off of them anyway. Its the way this freeway is constructed that is the present problem and it adds to the flooding in the med center and maybe as far back as Meyerland. They have created a serious bottleneck at the Almeda bridge the feeder bridges  and the freeway overpasses by the way they built the structural bases which constrict the flow of the upper level of the non cemented grassy part of the bayou where most of the water flows.

In other words once the water gets above the concrete where it slopes up at about 45 degrees to the street when it gets to both Almeda and 288 they have cut off the grassy part of the bayou with concrete bunkers that hold up the roadbed constricting the flow and capacity. I'm not trying to be rude but I want you to understand the situation and why Im suggesting that they raise the roadbeds of the freeways and rebuild the structural element of both Almeda and 288. Thats why I suggested a higher roadbed for 288.

 

As far as parks under freeways go you're just flat wrong. Im not suggesting a park under the freeway but a dual retention pond on the east side of 288 that would double as parkland like all of the retention ponds that serve a dual role on the western end of Brays. If your not familiar with the retention ponds here is the link to the project.

https://www.projectbrays.org/press-room/current-news/2007/02/arthur-storey-park-stormwater-detention-basin-receives-h-gac-regional-excellence-award/`

 

 If they did raise the roadbeds of the freeway over the bayou watershed they could widen the bayou on the eastern edge of Herman park .  Reclaim the property on the north side of the bayou east of 288 so they could make an even larger parkland retention area. 

 

I believe that Buffalo Bayou park goes under 45 and Pierce elevated and Houston Avenue  multiple lanes of overhead traffic as wide as 288. 

I meant for the park to actually be east of 288.

 

 

 

So you weren't talking about something like this?

 

 

If you were, I believe I've already outlined above why that's not a great idea.

 

If you weren't, then explain. The mainlanes of 288 have to be lower than the frontage roads and closer to the bayou's normal level so there aren't any dramatic changes in the highway's grade, as just south of MacGregor, there's a pedestrian overpass (formerly a railroad). For the sake of simplicity (and the city is fairly flat) let's call the elevation of the bulk of Houston "0". Railroads also like flat surfaces, so all trains run at "0". One level below this is "-1" and one level above is "+1", and so on. Highway interchanges are one of the taller structures that aren't lighting or buildings, and when two freeways interchange, they form a "five-stack" with the frontage roads running at 0, main lanes of both freeways running at +1 and +2, and the ramps at +3 and +4. Bayous run at -1 (functionally, let's not get too nitpicky) and the only -2 level freeway I know of is the ramp from southbound Beltway 8 to east bound Westpark Tollway.

 

At most interchanges, the crossing road is at 0, and the highway goes over at +1. This is the most common set-up among at freeways except for the depressed sections, where the crossing road is at 0 and the freeway is at -1. In a more rare circumstance, MacGregor and the frontage roads are elevated to +1, Highway 288 stays at 0, and the bayou is at -1, which would make the freeway more susceptible to flooding. At the bayou, Highway 288 has to stay at 0 because its "default" is -1, as it is a sunken freeway from downtown to 610.

 

For obvious reasons, the MacGregor/288 interchange has to be at a minimum of 0, because of the bayou and a "river bridge" for the bayou is impractical at best (so is a tunnel going underneath the bayou). But to "raise the roadbed" would narrow clearance to the MacGregor overpasses.

 

So let's say that Highway 288 can't be built to 0 because as it stands it causes problems and that it needs to be taller (according to your theory).

 

OK. What if it was the height MacGregor is now? Well, that means MacGregor has to be at "0", or the height 288 is now, and that apparently causes extra flooding in your columns theory, plus now there's a big ramp that 288 has to go to, so cars start at -1 when they go under Binz or the pedestrian walkway, go up a big ramp to +1, and then back down again. It's not unheard of, as there are big drops at I-45 at Dallas Street, or Beltway 8 at I-10, and arguably, the "big drop" at Dallas Street is worse, but it also means that there's artificial congestion in that area due to slowing down for the ramp (and the last thing the freeways need is more congestion)

 

But what if a crossing at "0" is still not good enough? That means something would have to be rebuilt. So if 288 was now +1 (or, the height that the MacGregor/frontage road bridges are on), which is a little impractical but still very doable, MacGregor has to be now at an impractical +2, which means that ramps would be steep enough just getting on from MacGregor, and the ramps southbound from MacGregor are going to be amazingly steep to get three levels down to 288 to go under Binz (or the pedestrian walkway).

 

So the more dramatic (and expensive) procedure would be to rebuild 288 completely as a +1 level structure and go up even higher for the MacGregor/Brays Bayou overpass. This would naturally create an abandoned canyon, horrible for reasons described in my previous post, or just a straight elevated highway (backfilling any space under the highway that you can hide under and ending up largely resembling any other typical freeway like I-45, US-290, I-10, etc.), which wouldn't do much for flood control (since 288 can no longer serve as an emergency spillover pond) or quality of life. Either way I don't see your plan working, save for the detention pond idea at the northeast corner of MacGregor and 288. That's actually a good one.

[HoustonMidtown]

A few more pics from today - the amount of dirt needing to be removed is amazing

 

[IronTiger]

All that dirt is sediment, right? Where did it all come from, the Barker Reservoir?

 

[Ross]

Some of the silt came from the reservoirs, but most of it came from the bayou. Water velocities in the reservoirs are not high enough to pick up much silt, but there would have been a decent amount in the water. Buffalo Bayou has a very silty bottom, and with flow rates of 14,000 cfs, there would have been a lot of scouring and eating away at banks, bottoms, etc. Here's an example of that happening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Lake_Gorge which was created by 70,000 cfs flow over limestone.

[Nate99]

That's amazing. Does Memorial Park look similar?

[Sparrow]

With all of this sediment being deposited on the banks, would one tend to think that the channels have been made deeper and wider? Will the 100-year flood plain be reduced due to increased capacity? Or has as much, or more, sediment been deposited downstream within the channel reducing the velocity at which water will make it's way to the Gulf?

 

[samagon]

On 9/23/2017 at 1:15 PM, bobruss said:

I was just using that as an example for GMAC as to how some have navigated crossing a river. They used an elevated canal to go over the river.

I will say again I'm not a hydrologist or an engineer. I am someone who was just trying to offer some ideas on moving water out of Houston.Obviously I don't have the capabilities of Ross or Iron Tiger or any of you, but I at least am offering suggestions. I didn't use this as an example of drainage but merely as a structural element used in another way could possibly help mitigate. I don't think there is one solution that will solve all of the flooding issues . It will take a lot of separate pieces, but unless someone starts thinking outside the box the box is going to fill up with water.

 

I don't think that any of us are hydrologists either, and as such I think any of our thoughts are as valid as the other. One of my friends attending UH is taking a class on drainage. We discussed this topic at length, one of the things that makes it tough is costs. Taxes speak really loud. I think we may have even discussed it in this thread?

 

Many of the countries in the EU plan for the 1000 year storm when developing land. We look to the Netherlands and their work with water (and water retention) and say "Why can't we do that" well, it costs a lot of money. So do we want a quality of life that provides peace of mind for 1000 year flood events, or do we want quality of life that has current level taxes?

 

The number of people in Houston that are up in arms over the 1 year tax our mayor suggested prove the answer to that question is lower taxes.

 

So in reality, any idea that might mitigate the chances of a future flood are academic and worthwhile for the purposes of our discussion.

[samagon]

On 9/25/2017 at 7:46 AM, Nate99 said:

That's amazing. Does Memorial Park look similar?

 

There are portions of trail that are totally washed out in Buffalo Bayou Park, and others that are still there but structurally unsafe on the east side of town.

 

I took pictures, I need to upload them to a suitable location and post them here. It's quite fascinating. 

 

Of course, I don't want to think of all the heavy metals and poo I'm subjecting myself to in these expeditions