TxDOT Proposes Elevating I-10 near I-45

[iah77]

5 hours ago, Amlaham said:

1. Sweden (who makes Volvo), doesn't even have coal plants. Sweden has done an amazing job generating electricity from NON-COAL plants. They're actually extremely advanced in the sense that all their buses and electricity is generated from recycling trash (its actually interesting, look it up) :) Your argument about coal plants is an American problem. Also, your argument about the C40 causing more pollutants to make than a gas XC40 ignores the entire polluting process of generating gas itself. 

2. "None of the science matches," maybe due some more research? Pollution in our own city was significantly down during the pandemic because people weren't driving their cars. Your argument sounds like "global warming is fake." Won't argue with someone with that mindset.

3. My argument about electrification of vehicles was in reference to the O&G industry, and my argument about highway fanatics was in reference to not expanding other modes of transpiration.......not about eliminating personal vehicles. My statement wasn't even complex, idk what made you think that? I never said personal vehicles are going anywhere, and if you REALLY read my statement, you would understand that i meant we need to expand transportation, NOT eliminate one or the other.  

You are right, Sweden actually gets almost all of its energy from nuclear and dams which would never happen here .. They have 14 reactors for 10 million people and I think we have 4 for 29 million. Again it's a policy issues where electric cars are being promoted yet there isn't enough funding to update the electric grid to support it (on top of the massive population growth here I'm assuming) 

Volvo has been Chinese for for over a decade now so I would not tie the two so closely together. I guess the main issue is that the government at federal, state, and local levels has no common direction and as a result everything is being done poorly. Houston will never have density to warrant real public transportation at the rate we are going due to parking minimums and ridiculous setbacks. Most of the old buildings people like would be illegal to build under current building setback codes, especially after Ashby where the setback is super high against residential structures for tall buildings. I guess I don't disagree with your vision but more about how it's totally incompatible with local regulations in their current state. It's like forcing puzzle pieces together violently, so until other factors change I think heavy emphasis on public transport is not the best use of funds instead of say education etc.  

[august948]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

nope, you don't need greenfield, you just need time and desire. but the desire isn't there. primarily because we as a society have been convinced by the industries that profit from single occupant vehicles, that single occupant vehicles are the best and highest form of transit. 

until a majority of society decides that single occupant vehicles are not the highest form of transit, it won't change. 

So what would be the highest form of transit if not a personal vehicle that can go from any point to any point while carrying multiple passengers and goods?

[editor]

Some of the rhetoric posted here is getting a little unhinged; including a few of my posts that I ended up editing.  Let's get this back on track and talk about the I-10 project, and anyone who wants to continue with the burning dinosaurs vs. rainbows and unicorns debate can create a new thread to do so.

[springcityparts]

TxDOT “leaked” the video ahead of the public meeting next week https://youtu.be/sdHpW4BrcTQ

$347M

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by emmanume
Added estimated costs

[Avossos]

This seems totally unneeded. And the road noise and visual pollution of more raised highways is A huge negative.

the only positive would be potentially fixing the houston ave bridge that constantly gets hit.

if they do this, we should demand the quiet road treatment they have put on 290 and i10 near memorial to reduce noise pollution.

[editor]

A few notes:

• While I think it's great that the public meeting notices were published in The Leader, and La Voz and Community Impact, I think it's strange that TxDOT didn't publish them in the Chronicle.  It's an interstate highway.  Both in funding, and in use it impacts people far beyond the immediate neighborhoods.  That's the whole purpose of an interstate highway.  It feels (to me, and I'm happy to be wrong) that TxDOT habitually under-notifies people of public events, and has very few public hearings compared with comparable agencies, or even lowly Houston Metro.  The more I observe TxDOT, the more it seems to do the very bare minimum required to get public input.  It either just wants to do its own thing, or its internal culture is just not used to handling or valuing public input.
• Along those lines, postcards were mailed to adjacent property owners.  That's it? In other cities where I've lived, I'd expect everyone within two miles of the freeway to get something in the mail. 
• There are no additional lanes proposed, just an elevation of the the highway.  To me, this is surprising.
• Current ROW: 550-720' wide - New configuration is only expected to be just a smidge wider, at the Houston Avenue overpass.
• Not expected to make things worst for Olivewood Cemetery.
• Cost: $347,000,000
• Construction start: 2024.  No end date given.
• The video gives instructions to find the project web page. Those instructions don't work.  In addition, the QR code that's supposed to take you to the project page just goes to the web page about the meeting that you just watched: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/072622.html  Another bad look that makes it seem like TxDOT is not interested in hearing from the people who fund it.

 

[editor]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:29 AM, Avossos said:

This seems totally unneeded. And the road noise and visual pollution of more raised highways is A huge negative.

the only positive would be potentially fixing the houston ave bridge that constantly gets hit.

if they do this, we should demand the quiet road treatment they have put on 290 and i10 near memorial to reduce noise pollution.

According to the presentation, this is all about getting the road out of the flood plain during big storms, presumably so people can evacuate.

But you're right — there are a lot more people living in this area than out on 290, so they should do something to make it quieter.

I remember a decade or two ago, there was a big kerfuffle in New Jersey because a highway was renovated and the poor neighborhoods all got sound barriers, while the rich ones didn't.  The Biff and Muffy complained, NJDOT told people that it puts up sound barriers based on population density, and if the McMansion crowd wanted some, they could pay for it themselves.

Sometimes the system works.

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, editor said:

A few notes:

• While I think it's great that the public meeting notices were published in The Leader, and La Voz and Community Impact, I think it's strange that TxDOT didn't publish them in the Chronicle.  It's an interstate highway.  Both in funding, and in use it impacts people far beyond the immediate neighborhoods.  That's the whole purpose of an interstate highway.  It feels (to me, and I'm happy to be wrong) that TxDOT habitually under-notifies people of public events, and has very few public hearings compared with comparable agencies, or even lowly Houston Metro.  The more I observe TxDOT, the more it seems to do the very bare minimum required to get public input.  It either just wants to do its own thing, or its internal culture is just not used to handling or valuing public input.
• Along those lines, postcards were mailed to adjacent property owners.  That's it? In other cities where I've lived, I'd expect everyone within two miles of the freeway to get something in the mail. 
• There are no additional lanes proposed, just an elevation of the the highway.  To me, this is surprising.
• Current ROW: 550-720' wide - New configuration is only expected to be just a smidge wider, at the Houston Avenue overpass.
• Not expected to make things worst for Olivewood Cemetery.
• Cost: $347,000,000
• Construction start: 2024.  No end date given.
• The video gives instructions to find the project web page. Those instructions don't work.  In addition, the QR code that's supposed to take you to the project page just goes to the web page about the meeting that you just watched: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/072622.html  Another bad look that makes it seem like TxDOT is not interested in hearing from the people who fund it.

 

Quick correction, the video says postcards were mailed out to all "project adjacent mail routes", not just to adjacent property owners.

[JLWM8609]

On 7/25/2022 at 10:43 AM, editor said:

According to the presentation, this is all about getting the road out of the flood plain during big storms, presumably so people can evacuate.

But you're right — there are a lot more people living in this area than out on 290, so they should do something to make it quieter.

I remember a decade or two ago, there was a big kerfuffle in New Jersey because a highway was renovated and the poor neighborhoods all got sound barriers, while the rich ones didn't.  The Biff and Muffy complained, NJDOT told people that it puts up sound barriers based on population density, and if the McMansion crowd wanted some, they could pay for it themselves.

Sometimes the system works.

TxDOT has been giving most of the recent freeway rebuilds the quiet treatment with longitudinally tined pavement.

[crock]

the single raised Bus lane is audible where I live, ~6 blocks south of i10@houston, and I cannot imagine what 5xing the amount of raised highway would do to the passive noise level of the First Ward. 

the "this is for evacuations" is bullshit because 288 floods intentionally and every version of the i45 plan has them deciding to nullify any ability for i45/i59 through central houston to be functional during a storm, this portion of i10 would not have any traffic to move north/west by TxDot's already stated plans.  

[Houston19514]

17 minutes ago, crock said:

the "this is for evacuations" is bullshit because 288 floods intentionally and every version of the i45 plan has them deciding to nullify any ability for i45/i59 through central houston to be functional during a storm, this portion of i10 would not have any traffic to move north/west by TxDot's already stated plans.  

That statement regarding i45/i59[sic] is false.

[hindesky]

"A state proposal to elevate Interstate 10 near White Oak Bayou is raising concerns among neighbors, who worry about the effects a higher freeway would have on noise and drainage."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Plan-to-elevate-I-10-raises-concerns-among-17333583.php

[Triton]

Latest schematics of the project

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/072622-schematic.pdf

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/072622-schematic-sup.pdf

 

[Triton]

4 minutes ago, Triton said:

Latest schematics of the project

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/072622-schematic.pdf

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/072622-schematic-sup.pdf

 

Although I think this project still feels unnecessary to me, I do like they are trying to fix problems with the original design. For example, the eastbound exit to Taylor is pulled back further which should help with people having to cross several lanes over to Taylor (Target side).

Also looks like they try to smoothen out the ramps coming from and going to I-45.

[crock]

22 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

That statement regarding i45/i59[sic] is false.

they're literally said the i45/i69 underground would function similar to 288. 

how is that false? 

[Houston19514]

2 minutes ago, crock said:

they're literally said the i45/i69 underground would function similar to 288. 

how is that false? 

Show us where they said that I45/I69 will be designed to fill with flood water, planning to nullify any ability to function during a storm.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Houston19514

[crock]

2 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Show me where they said that.

How about you show me where they've said that i45/i69 underground wouldn't be used as retention ponds during a major flood event.  When I asked TxDOT employees how people in the heights/Washington Corridor were supposed to get to the medical center during a major flood event without the pierce elevated they told me with a straight face we would use surface roads.  
 

[crock]

can someone explain if this (highlighted in yellow by me) means the Houston Avenue bridge is being raised, lowered, or not moved? 

[Houston19514]

44 minutes ago, crock said:

How about you show me where they've said that i45/i69 underground wouldn't be used as retention ponds during a major flood event.  When I asked TxDOT employees how people in the heights/Washington Corridor were supposed to get to the medical center during a major flood event without the pierce elevated they told me with a straight face we would use surface roads.  
 

Depressed sections of the proposed project will be designed to provide a 500-year level of protection. This will be achieved through a pumped drainage system that will collect rainwater falling inside the depressed sections and discharge it to an adjacent detention basin or receiving channel. In addition, the entrance points to the depressed sections will be constructed above the adjacent 500-year water surface elevation, such that adjacent floodwaters cannot enter and flood the depressed sections. See Section 3.8.3 of the Final EIS for additional information about studies that will be conducted by TxDOT during project design.

Depressed sections of the proposed project will be designed to handle extreme weather events with rainfall levels similar to the region’s three most recent flood events: Memorial Day (2015), Tax Day (2016), and Hurricane Harvey (2017). Additionally, the project will be designed to meet and/or exceed the most recent guidelines set by the HCFCD. In some cases, there may be water over the roadway during an extreme rainfall event, but the road is designed to still be passable. This will be achieved through a pumped drainage system that will collect rainwater falling inside the depressed sections and discharge it to an adjacent detention basin or receiving channel. For example, the rainwater that falls within the depressed section along US 59/I-69 between Main Street and Alabama Street would be conveyed to a detention facility where it would be held and then discharged at a controlled rate to Brays Bayou. The detention facilities will be sized to accommodate extreme rain events so that the water pumped out of the depressed sections does not overwhelm the receiving bayous. To further protect the depressed sections, the entrance points to these areas would be constructed above the new 500-year water surface elevation such that adjacent floodwaters do not enter the depressed sections and overwhelm the pumps.
The pump stations for the depressed sections of highway will be designed with backup pumps and backup generators to reduce the likelihood of a pump system failure. TxDOT is currently exploring the development of an alert system that will close access to depressed sections of the highways in the event of a pump failure.

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Houston19514

[crock]

Thanks @Houston19514!

[samagon]

21 hours ago, crock said:

they're literally said the i45/i69 underground would function similar to 288. 

how is that false? 

 

21 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Depressed sections of the proposed project will be designed to provide a 500-year level of protection. This will be achieved through a pumped drainage system that will collect rainwater falling inside the depressed sections and discharge it to an adjacent detention basin or receiving channel. In addition, the entrance points to the depressed sections will be constructed above the adjacent 500-year water surface elevation, such that adjacent floodwaters cannot enter and flood the depressed sections. See Section 3.8.3 of the Final EIS for additional information about studies that will be conducted by TxDOT during project design.

Depressed sections of the proposed project will be designed to handle extreme weather events with rainfall levels similar to the region’s three most recent flood events: Memorial Day (2015), Tax Day (2016), and Hurricane Harvey (2017). Additionally, the project will be designed to meet and/or exceed the most recent guidelines set by the HCFCD. In some cases, there may be water over the roadway during an extreme rainfall event, but the road is designed to still be passable. This will be achieved through a pumped drainage system that will collect rainwater falling inside the depressed sections and discharge it to an adjacent detention basin or receiving channel. For example, the rainwater that falls within the depressed section along US 59/I-69 between Main Street and Alabama Street would be conveyed to a detention facility where it would be held and then discharged at a controlled rate to Brays Bayou. The detention facilities will be sized to accommodate extreme rain events so that the water pumped out of the depressed sections does not overwhelm the receiving bayous. To further protect the depressed sections, the entrance points to these areas would be constructed above the new 500-year water surface elevation such that adjacent floodwaters do not enter the depressed sections and overwhelm the pumps.
The pump stations for the depressed sections of highway will be designed with backup pumps and backup generators to reduce the likelihood of a pump system failure. TxDOT is currently exploring the development of an alert system that will close access to depressed sections of the highways in the event of a pump failure.

 

so it's par for the course then. do we just explain away the TXDoT representative as being some 'low level person that doesn't know everything about the project' for giving crock bad information?

it seems to me that the person they put in front of the public should be very knowledgeable about the project, and considering how important flooding is, that should be something that is well known to anyone who is paraded in front of the public.

I have seen from the schematics where they intend for the detention ponds to be. I guess (presuming the project goes forward) time will tell if it actually works as is outlined above. I guess if it does fail, TXDoT will have some serious lawsuits to deal with, since they have outlined no flooding of the depressed roadway as part of the project.

Edited July 29, 2022 by samagon

[SmellyHoustonian]

This is a very stupid project to spend $350MM to fix a problem that occurs once every few years for 12 hours or so. Not to mention they are not going to do this in coordination with their other planned elevated managed lanes project and the METRO inner Katy BRT project. 

This along with 45 will manage to screw over the one good commuter bike path in the City for a full a decade (MKT trail from the Heights to Downtown).

[samagon]

can we rename the title of this thread from "raising" to "elevating"

some might confuse raising with razing and get all excited.

[JLWM8609]

On 7/28/2022 at 12:37 PM, crock said:

can someone explain if this (highlighted in yellow by me) means the Houston Avenue bridge is being raised, lowered, or not moved? 

That's the centerline for the Houston Ave. bridge.

 

On 7/29/2022 at 10:20 AM, SmellyHoustonian said:

This is a very stupid project to spend $350MM to fix a problem that occurs once every few years for 12 hours or so. Not to mention they are not going to do this in coordination with their other planned elevated managed lanes project and the METRO inner Katy BRT project. 

It looks like it's not even being done in coordination with the NHHIP because the new ramps at 45 will tie into the current interchange. It's like they future proofed parts of it but not all of it. From what I can tell, the new elevated HOV bridge within this project will be built wide enough to accommodate the future Inner Katy elevated managed lanes at the west end and the I-10 MaX lanes at the east end once they're tied in. Yet, it looks like it'll tie into the present 1x1 HOV bridge that ends at Franklin and Bagby if the NHHIP hasn't built the MaX lanes by then. But like you said, there's a big lack of coordination because METRO's Option 1 is to tie the BRT into the current HOV bridge between Taylor and Studemont to bring the BRT into downtown, but that ramp is scheduled to be removed during the NHHIP. Option 2 is to run it south of I-10 and terminate it at Franklin and Bagby, and looks like they'd use part of the current HOV bridge near Amtrak for that. If they build this as-is, the managed lanes will tie into the HOV bridge, meaning METRO can't use either Option 1 or Option 2 for the busway, and Option 2 won't be able to be started unless the managed lanes connect to the MaX Lanes. Yeah, this is a clusterf... as-is. Hopefully they all get on the same page soon.

METRO Option 1 and 2: 

 

[phillip_white]

I've never seen a rendering with all of these proposed items together.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2022/09/21/433518/could-central-houstons-proposed-downtown-amenities-make-the-i-45-project-more-palatable/

[hindesky]

Saw a crew taking core samples for I think will be the IH 10 Elevation project just west of the Houston Ave. bridge.

[bookey23]

Wait, did this get approved?  This goes right by my house and would cause so much more noise. What a truly moronic use of taxpayer money

[Amlaham]

If a project needs to be stopped, its definitely this one! 

[editor]

On 5/18/2023 at 5:09 PM, Amlaham said:

If a project needs to be stopped, its definitely this one! 

I've decided to stop caring about this project, simply because when it's finished, I will be long dead.

[JClark54]

METRO claims TxDOT's I-10 revamp will increase its BRT project costs: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/i-10-txdot-metro-bus-transit-18112410.php

 

To make room for TxDOT's managed leans, Metro will swing its BRT busway across the freeway closer to the Loop 610 interchange than initially planned, complicating both the design and the cost of land, Reddy said. That includes some right of way along the freeway on the border of Memorial Park.

The extra cost, which would jump the total price to around $600 million, could be filled by additional regional transportation funding, Metro CEO Tom Lambert said, doled out by the Houston-Galveston Area Council.

“We’re going to take a look at options for grant funding,” Lambert said, adding that federal officials have committed new funding to transit projects in coming years.