Houston: Inner Katy Freeway preliminary concepts

[MaxConcrete]

So they are going to elevate I-10 due to flooding? I thought the BRT was to go from downtown to 610?

For the scope of the work covered by the TxDOT meeting, the main lanes of I-10 remain where they are, which is mostly below ground level. Only the new express/managed lanes may be elevated.

However, the separate project east of Studemont will raise the I-10 main lanes onto elevated structures. The existing I-10 main lanes in that area are in the White Oak Bayou flood plain, and they usually flood when there is flooding in Houston.

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT has scheduled a February 6 public meeting for the inner Katy Managed lanes.

There are two remaining options (excluding no-build) being considered: elevated and at the freeway level, which is mostly below grade.

I prefer to see the managed lanes at freeway level. But it looks like that option is poison-pilled by the extensive right-of-way clearance required.

The proposed project would include approximately 6.3 miles of new managed lanes, reconstructing the existing general-purpose lanes, and expanding the current drainage system. The existing right-of-way is approximately 415-feet-wide.

TxDOT is currently considering two alternatives to add four managed lanes which will be presented at this public meeting to compare to the no-build scenario. The two alternatives are: 1) Elevated Managed Lanes where the proposed managed lanes would be on an elevated structure with minimal right-of-way (ROW) needed (approximately 0.34 acres) and no residential or business displacements and 2) Non-elevated Managed Lanes where the proposed managed lanes would be located at the same grade as the general purpose lanes, expanding the ROW needed (approximately 12.54 additional acres), with displacements of approximately 52 residential structures and 30 businesses/commercial structures.

[Some one]

Just convert the inner 2 lanes into hov lanes and call it a day. Redirect that funding towards a freeway that actually needs it *cough* I-45 between I-69/US 59 and Beltway 8.

[Plutonic Panda]

Just convert the inner 2 lanes into hov lanes and call it a day. Redirect that funding towards a freeway that actually needs it *cough* I-45 between I-69/US 59 and Beltway 8.

No

[Some one]

Just convert the inner 2 lanes into hov lanes and call it a day. Redirect that funding towards a freeway that actually needs it *cough* I-45 between I-69/US 59 and Beltway 8.

No

Yes

[Plutonic Panda]

TxDOT has scheduled a February 6 public meeting for the inner Katy Managed lanes.

There are two remaining options (excluding no-build) being considered: elevated and at the freeway level, which is mostly below grade.

I prefer to see the managed lanes at freeway level. But it looks like that option is poison-pilled by the extensive right-of-way clearance required.

The proposed project would include approximately 6.3 miles of new managed lanes, reconstructing the existing general-purpose lanes, and expanding the current drainage system. The existing right-of-way is approximately 415-feet-wide.

TxDOT is currently considering two alternatives to add four managed lanes which will be presented at this public meeting to compare to the no-build scenario. The two alternatives are: 1) Elevated Managed Lanes where the proposed managed lanes would be on an elevated structure with minimal right-of-way (ROW) needed (approximately 0.34 acres) and no residential or business displacements and 2) Non-elevated Managed Lanes where the proposed managed lanes would be located at the same grade as the general purpose lanes, expanding the ROW needed (approximately 12.54 additional acres), with displacements of approximately 52 residential structures and 30 businesses/commercial structures.

Not trying to be argumentative here but why are you seemingly always against tunnels or elevated alternatives? You were against it in Austin and in this case especially(I know you mentioned it) but it would require a lot of ROW. It's good to make use of all 3 dimensions. I know cost is a factor.

[Some one]

Not trying to be argumentative either, but I can understand not wanting it to be elevated. However, even though it's not being considered, tunneled-managed lanes under I-10 would probably be the best of both worlds. TXDOT gets their managed lanes, and the neighborhood (probably) doesn't have to deal with an increase in noise/pollution levels or lose any more ROW. Too bad it's stupidly expensive.

[Plutonic Panda]

Not trying to be argumentative either, but I can understand not wanting it to be elevated. However, even though it's not being considered, tunneled-managed lanes under I-10 would probably be the best of both worlds. TXDOT gets their managed lanes, and the neighborhood (probably) doesn't have to deal with an increase in noise/pollution levels or lose any more ROW. Too bad it's stupidly expensive.

I agree. This would be the most logical approach. But converting two existing lanes to express lanes would create a nightmare bottleneck.

This will help with backups a bit but new GP lane would be better if they could add that.

[Some one]

Not trying to be argumentative either, but I can understand not wanting it to be elevated. However, even though it's not being considered, tunneled-managed lanes under I-10 would probably be the best of both worlds. TXDOT gets their managed lanes, and the neighborhood (probably) doesn't have to deal with an increase in noise/pollution levels or lose any more ROW. Too bad it's stupidly expensive.

I agree. This would be the most logical approach. But converting two existing lanes to express lanes would create a nightmare bottleneck.

This will help with backups a bit but new GP lane would be better if they could add that.

Ehhhhhh, maybe it's just cause I haven't driven on that section of I-10 much, but I don't see that happening. Most of I-10 within the inner loop is already 10 lanes with 2 auxiliary lanes, and my idea would just make two of those lanes into carpool lanes, leaving 8 GP lanes and 2 aux lanes. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only chokepoint within that stretch of I-10 is at 45 (which they're planning on rebuilding anyway). Plus it's a relatively short gap between the HOV/HOT lanes they're trying to connect anyway. At the very least, they should restripe I-10 to have the HOV lanes and the 10 general lanes, and "expand" it where necessary. I also might be saying this because I want to see I-10 capped between Washington and Patterson. (this might be leaning too much into fictional highway territory )

ETA: It would also mean less complications with the planned Inner Katy BRT.

[thisdj78]

Not trying to be argumentative either, but I can understand not wanting it to be elevated. However, even though it's not being considered, tunneled-managed lanes under I-10 would probably be the best of both worlds. TXDOT gets their managed lanes, and the neighborhood (probably) doesn't have to deal with an increase in noise/pollution levels or lose any more ROW. Too bad it's stupidly expensive.

I would have to imagine that tunnels in the Houston area are a significantly expensive option vs other cities due to the water table level underground. And (IMO) long running elevated highways just look bad.

Now they could cap and cover the depressed portion of the freeway and make the access road run on top. That would allow some room to build additional lanes using the existing ROW, but they would have to eliminate some on/off ramps.

[The Ghostbuster]

Tunnels would likely be a no-go in Houston. As proof of that, I reference Hurricane Harvey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey. Elevated lanes over the existing lanes is probably what Houston would do if it chose to.

[jgb191]

I'm surprised Houston hasn't taken a page from Austin and San Antonio and build double-decker freeways; I would have made the upper deck three express lanes for through traffic (with only interchanges with I-610 and BW-8), and the lower three local lanes with exit and entrances to/from local streets.

[thisdj78]

I'm surprised Houston hasn't taken a page from Austin and San Antonio and build double-decker freeways; I would have made the upper deck three express lanes for through traffic (with only interchanges with I-610 and BW-8), and the lower three local lanes with exit and entrances to/from local streets.

I don't think there is much appeal today for double decker freeways. I'm surprised San Antonio and Dallas were able to build the ones they have recently (the I-35 express lanes under construction from Selma to 410 and the I-35 E TEXpress lanes).

[Echostatic]

Austin is tearing down its old upper deck on I-35 while building a new upper deck just a few miles south.

[Concrete Bob]

Double-deck tunnels have only lost their appeal in California's Bay Area region and perhaps the New York Metro area. Seattle got rid of theirs recently.   Honestly, outside of Saint Joseph Missouri, I can't think of any area with a seriously-developed double-decker freeway system, covering a serious percentage on the local freeway network.

[TXtoNJ]

I'm surprised Houston hasn't taken a page from Austin and San Antonio and build double-decker freeways; I would have made the upper deck three express lanes for through traffic (with only interchanges with I-610 and BW-8), and the lower three local lanes with exit and entrances to/from local streets.

The Gulf Freeway south of downtown leading to Spur 5/Future SH 35 is exactly this.

[jgb191]

The pair of elevated roadways along the Gulf Freeway are ramps to and from US-59 and TX-288.  Some may think of it as double-decks, but they are just extensions of flyover ramps, much like the elevated ramps from the Sam Tollway onto I-45 or I-10.  The ones in San Antonio and Austin are vertically stacked directly on top and split and then re-merged; it doesn't matter which level you take if you're going through, you'll still end up on the same roadway when they remerge.