twisterhunt Posted November 7, 2023 Share Posted November 7, 2023 37 minutes ago, mollusk said: How about some light abatement while they're at it? I'm 1/2 mile from the Katy and even further from 45, but over the years it's gotten to where you can just about read at night in my back yard (which is opposite the house/garage from both). We've had to put blackout curtains in the bedrooms, which weren't necessary before the giant light masts even when I lived closer. 100% agreed! I eluded to that along with a few others in the public comments as well. Fortunately the mast by me has been "out" for the past year now which has reduced the issue a bit -> TXDOT was replacing the others near I-45 with LEDs a while back and I am sure we'll be able to do the same if the lights down I-10 are replaced. The massive masts may have been more necessary pre-LED but certainly hope TXDOT would consider some alternate / targeted lighting given the technology we have nowadays... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) Revised plans still call for elevating I-10 along White Oak Bayou, but not by as much Lowering the overall height of the carpool lane, which bypasses the main lanes and connects commuters directly to downtown. Building six-foot railings along the elevated lanes – twice the typical height – to help reduce noise. Avoiding a small stand of trees north of the bayou by instead using more of the space below the raised freeway for storm water detention. Adding other trees to provide more of a buffer between residences, businesses and the freeway. Building, in consult with Harris County Flood Control District and Houston officials, an additional bike trail along the south side of White Oak Bayou with connections and signs to existing city bike routes. Elevating I-10 Meeting A public meeting is scheduled Wednesday for the proposal to elevate Interstate 10 out of the floodplain between Heights Boulevard and Interstate 45. When: Jan. 17, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Where: TxDOT Houston District Office Auditorium Address: 7600 Washington Ave. Online information: https://www.txdot.go Edited January 12 by hindesky 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some one Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I don't get it. So they want to elevate I-10 to get it out of the floodplain.... but they also want to sink 45 and 59 below ground so they can function as a floodplain? How inconsistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 26 minutes ago, Some one said: I don't get it. So they want to elevate I-10 to get it out of the floodplain.... but they also want to sink 45 and 59 below ground so they can function as a floodplain? How inconsistent. They are not sinking 45 and 59 “so they can serve as a floodplain “. The below-grade segments will be drained with pumping systems. The section of I-10 being raised runs next to and over a bayou , so sinking it would not be feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some one Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said: They are not sinking 45 and 59 “so they can serve as a floodplain “. The below-grade segments will be drained with pumping systems. The section of I-10 being raised runs next to and over a bayou , so sinking it would not be feasible. I see. Still, I don't think this project is necessary. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 For those who can't make the meeting on Wednesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Once every few years (10 times in the last 30 years, according to the Chron) the low parts of the Katy Freeway end up as de facto detention ponds, and are among the first places to drain out. The pavement is not that old and is in good shape. Traffic is still going to have to slow down for the interchanges at peak times. It's crazy to spend a gazillion dollars cash plus who knows how much time wasted in tied up construction traffic to make this occur - not to mention the additional light, sound, and particulate pollution that will be spread all over the adjacent neighborhoods. As it is we have to use blackout curtains and white noise machines in order to have a decent night's sleep - and we're a half mile away. Walking the dogs this frozen morning, we were struck by how quiet it was without the freeway rumble. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Here are the captured screen caps. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/houston/i10-011624.html https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-flyer.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-handout.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-boards.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-schematic.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-schematic-sup.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-environmental-constraints-1.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-environmental-constraints-2.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-presentation.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-traffic.pdf https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-heights-white-oak-bayou/011624-comment.pdf https://www.txdot.gov/business/right-of-way/landowner-bill-of-rights.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 This is such a waste of time and money. Also bitter about the Y pillars getting annihilated. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisterhunt Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I'll save my full comments for TxDOT - but I agree this is a waste. The only legitimate reason TxDOT seems to provide is that this stretch of I-10 doesn't meet Federal / TxDOT standards regarding the 100-year floodplain. That being said, I wonder how many other portions of highways don't meet this qualification either - and if it's worth spending half a billion dollars on it. TxDOT also claims the highway has flooded 10x in the past 32 years - but would be interesting to see the 'duration' of how long the highway was truly impassable in all of these events as I'm guessing a few were short durations. I had to laugh when the presentation mentioned that I-10 being closed (pending facts above) raises prices of goods in our area 😏 - as if there are no alternate routes. Happy to see that TxDOT has been willing to compromise in certain areas of this project - it's a good start. The visual illustrations are quite helpful and telling that this highway will continue to be more of an eyesore if these modifications are constructed. And while I'm supportive of improved transit opportunities, what really worries me are those massively tall Metro BRT lanes - there has to be a way these can be incorporated without needing to build what looks to be a rollercoaster in the sky!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 30 year design life is such a joke .. But sure let's just continue to pour billions upon billions into maintaining existing highways no questions asked. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyc05 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) Maybe it's a situation where they have to spend the money or lose it Edited January 17 by kennyc05 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate_56 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 One bright side is the Houston avenue bridge won't be struck anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXK Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, kennyc05 said: Maybe it's a situation where they have to spend the money or lose it Been there before, know the pressure to get things into a budget before it goes away. But they couldn't find any other possible way to spend money to achieve flood improvements that doesn't result in this much construction for an elevated section highway? Wish all this money being thrown around could be used to buy out properties in flood plains and renaturalize them instead. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, twisterhunt said: TxDOT also claims the highway has flooded 10x in the past 32 years - but would be interesting to see the 'duration' and flooded isn't necessarily impassable. I wonder during that same 32 year history, how many times was the freeway shut down for construction? all lanes, in all directions? duration for those, I expect 9pm Friday evening through 5am Monday morning to be the duration... I can think of 2 or 3 times alone for the Elysian street viaduct rebuild. probably more than the times it's been shut down for floods. Edited January 17 by samagon 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) "Revised plans to elevate Interstate 10 northwest of downtown along White Oak Bayou seem to have eased — but not eliminated — concerns from nearby residents. Though some still question the need for the $347 million project by the Texas Department of Transportation to lift I-10 out of the floodway, slightly lower lanes and walls to dampen sound correct many of the problems people identified with the earlier plans. “I am not going to say I like it, but I like it a lot more than what they proposed the first time,” Heights resident David Rawlins said after seeing the plans Tuesday night online. TxDOT’s revised plan would elevate about 2 miles of I-10 west of I-45, between Houston Avenue and Studemont. The higher freeway lanes would reduce flooding risk from nearby White Oak Bayou but also place elevated lanes through First Ward and southern parts of the Heights, which alarmed residents when designs were unveiled mid-2022. Elevating the lanes also means elevating the HOV ramp into the central business district, which under the plans would be more than 115 feet in the air at its highest point near I-45. After concerns from residents, TxDOT engineers refined the project, lowering the lanes where possible and committing to taller walls along the road to address noise pollution and plans for new trails along and beneath the freeway to improve bayou running and biking trails." https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/white-oak-i10-elevation-txdot-freeway-flooding-18610884.php Edited January 19 by hindesky 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 It's a ridiculous waste of money. These guys don't know of anything else but moving cars. And they also started laying this project out KNOWING Metro was building their new BRT line and had conflicting plans. Why is it so hard for this agency to use those same monies and help create a commuter rail plan for the area? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) On 1/17/2024 at 1:22 PM, samagon said: and flooded isn't necessarily impassable. I wonder during that same 32 year history, how many times was the freeway shut down for construction? all lanes, in all directions? duration for those, I expect 9pm Friday evening through 5am Monday morning to be the duration... I can think of 2 or 3 times alone for the Elysian street viaduct rebuild. probably more than the times it's been shut down for floods. How many of those construction shut-downs (e.g. Elysian) occurred during an evacuation? I'll do the research for you: None. Then consider when the freeway is most likely to be inundated with water; that's right, during an evacuation. 1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said: It's a ridiculous waste of money. These guys don't know of anything else but moving cars. And they also started laying this project out KNOWING Metro was building their new BRT line and had conflicting plans. Why is it so hard for this agency to use those same monies and help create a commuter rail plan for the area? FWIW, Metro and TxDoT are closely coordinating their plans. Edited January 25 by Houston19514 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 This is probably really unpopular on this forum but I wish this project would have included some connection to Studemont. Yes yes, I know, that's making Houston more car centric but I just always felt the way to get back to Studemont was odd. That don't even have a u-turn up at Heights Blvd so it always causes a back up of people turning around going back to Studemont. I guess one of the big challenges would be to make it work with the existing bike trail... and that's probably why they avoid it, not to mention the local backlash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 8 hours ago, Triton said: This is probably really unpopular on this forum but I wish this project would have included some connection to Studemont. Yes yes, I know, that's making Houston more car centric but I just always felt the way to get back to Studemont was odd. That don't even have a u-turn up at Heights Blvd so it always causes a back up of people turning around going back to Studemont. I guess one of the big challenges would be to make it work with the existing bike trail... and that's probably why they avoid it, not to mention the local backlash. Yeah, I've never understood the lack of a u-turn lane at Heights Blvd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 19 hours ago, Houston19514 said: How many of those construction shut-downs (e.g. Elysian) occurred during an evacuation? I'll do the research for you: None. Then consider when the freeway is most likely to be inundated with water; that's right, during an evacuation. how many of the flooding events happened during an evacuation? the same answer is true. the evacuation happens before the event. there is a point when the message changes from "evacuate" to our favorite term "shelter in place". sometimes, before an event, there isn't time for city, or county officials to execute an evacuation plan and we go straight to shelter in place. no one ever is recommended to evacuate during an event, that creates an even worse possible scenario of being stranded without any shelter at all. the city, county or state will never issue an evacuation order when it is not safe to travel, if it determined to not be safe to travel, the evacuation will stop and it will transition to shelter in place. so no, your scenario of a freeway being inundated with water during an evacuation will never happen, nor has it ever happened. I can think of one scenario where the media sent the entire town into a frenzy, which overwhelmed the infrastructure, people who had not been instructed to evacuate, attempted to flee, in essence, the freeways were shut down due to people running out of gas and making the freeways (all of them) impassible, so people were still in evacuation mode (even though the official statement had shifted from evacuate to shelter in place). we were extremely lucky that none of the freeways flooded at that time and the storm took a late turn and went in farther east. anyway, that is an excellent example of why there will never be an evacuation order at the same time as there is potential flooding, we will be in shelter in place. Edited January 26 by samagon 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, Houston19514 said: Yeah, I've never understood the lack of a u-turn lane at Heights Blvd. 10 hours ago, Triton said: This is probably really unpopular on this forum but I wish this project would have included some connection to Studemont. Yes yes, I know, that's making Houston more car centric but I just always felt the way to get back to Studemont was odd. That don't even have a u-turn up at Heights Blvd so it always causes a back up of people turning around going back to Studemont. I guess one of the big challenges would be to make it work with the existing bike trail... and that's probably why they avoid it, not to mention the local backlash. I mean the point was to eliminate the focus on cars. U-turns directly conflict with pedestrians in the median which is a major rec spot. The street also didn't have u-turns before the esplanade, it was a 4 lane road with 2 lanes each direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said: I mean the point was to eliminate the focus on cars. U-turns directly conflict with pedestrians in the median which is a major rec spot. The street also didn't have u-turns before the esplanade, it was a 4 lane road with 2 lanes each direction. You seem confused. We are speaking of a U-turn lane connecting the west-bound I-10 frontage road to the eastbound frontage road. Zero interference with the Heights Blvd esplanade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said: You seem confused. We are speaking of a U-turn lane connecting the west-bound I-10 frontage road to the eastbound frontage road. Zero interference with the Heights Blvd esplanade. Not confused just a simple misunderstanding. I got it now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, samagon said: how many of the flooding events happened during an evacuation? the same answer is true. the evacuation happens before the event. there is a point when the message changes from "evacuate" to our favorite term "shelter in place". sometimes, before an event, there isn't time for city, or county officials to execute an evacuation plan and we go straight to shelter in place. no one ever is recommended to evacuate during an event, that creates an even worse possible scenario of being stranded without any shelter at all. the city, county or state will never issue an evacuation order when it is not safe to travel, if it determined to not be safe to travel, the evacuation will stop and it will transition to shelter in place. so no, your scenario of a freeway being inundated with water during an evacuation will never happen, nor has it ever happened. I can think of one scenario where the media sent the entire town into a frenzy, which overwhelmed the infrastructure, people who had not been instructed to evacuate, attempted to flee, in essence, the freeways were shut down due to people running out of gas and making the freeways (all of them) impassible, so people were still in evacuation mode (even though the official statement had shifted from evacuate to shelter in place). we were extremely lucky that none of the freeways flooded at that time and the storm took a late turn and went in farther east. anyway, that is an excellent example of why there will never be an evacuation order at the same time as there is potential flooding, we will be in shelter in place. Even if all that is true, just because there are occasions when freeways have to be closed for construction is not really a good reason to NOT fix flooding of the freeways. Here's an interesting audio on the topic of raising Houston's freeways https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/houston-matters/2019/11/07/351265/when-it-rains-houstons-freeways-flood-one-researcher-wants-to-change-that/ Edited January 26 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some one Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 22 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said: It's a ridiculous waste of money. These guys don't know of anything else but moving cars. And they also started laying this project out KNOWING Metro was building their new BRT line and had conflicting plans. Why is it so hard for this agency to use those same monies and help create a commuter rail plan for the area? Unfortunately, TxDOT is legally required to spend 97% of its funding on road projects. Maybe we would've seen commuter rail or (better) intercity rail if that wasn't the case, but for now, TxDOT's gonna TxDOT. Edited January 26 by Some one 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Some one said: Unfortunately, TxDOT is legally required to spend 97% of its funding on road projects. Maybe we would've seen commuter rail or (better) intercity rail if that wasn't the case, but for now, TxDOT's gonna TxDOT. Yeah I know and it's ridiculous. I think a lot of good ol boys have deep pockets in concrete 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWantTransit555 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/26/2024 at 12:27 PM, Some one said: Unfortunately, TxDOT is legally required to spend 97% of its funding on road projects. Maybe we would've seen commuter rail or (better) intercity rail if that wasn't the case, but for now, TxDOT's gonna TxDOT. Wtf. How do we go about changing that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) On 1/26/2024 at 11:57 AM, Houston19514 said: Even if all that is true, just because there are occasions when freeways have to be closed for construction is not really a good reason to NOT fix flooding of the freeways. Here's an interesting audio on the topic of raising Houston's freeways https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/houston-matters/2019/11/07/351265/when-it-rains-houstons-freeways-flood-one-researcher-wants-to-change-that/ don't disagree with you. the claim by TXDoT that flooding causing breaks in commercial traffic and citing how much commerce was impacted is an atrocious argument. I could give two shits about long haul trucking needs through Houston. if TXDoT comes at me with the number of people have died on that stretch of road because of flooding, ok, now you have my attention, but throwing the commercial impact like that matters to locals? that reasoning makes it very clear that the safety and lives of humans who use those freeways daily are less important than moving freight, unless I missed that part of the presentation where they talk about mitigating people getting stuck in a flooded car on the freeway and drowning. sorry for not coming out and just saying that from the get go, it's just that kind of a statement on a presentation just really pulls out that kind of snarky reply. anyway, let's not talk about raising Houston's freeways, we just talked about going below grade on all of them around downtown. I guess because they aren't in a bayou floodplain, but then, neither is 59 near Montrose, and one of the most iconic pictures of flooded highways in Houston is a dude kayaking down 59. and we just saw 288 get a shiny new refresh, that goes right through a bayou, floods regularly because it is in a bayou floodplain, and all they did was add (managed) lanes. there's little consistency, so it's hard for me to accept a rebuild because of floodplain to really be a thing. I guess maybe the amount of commercial impact on 288 was less, so who cares if it floods, right? and let's not even discuss that the commercial impact argument ignores that there are alternate routes to avoid a flooded I-10. 610 (either direction), beltway 8 (either direction), soon to be Grand Parkway. Edited January 29 by samagon 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.