Are proposed IH-10 frontage roads inside 610 needed?

[Bob]

An earlier discussion of this topic is here: http://www.ctchouston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=82

CTC has learned that neighborhood leaders from Cottage Grove, Woodcrest, First Ward, the Heights, and other neighborhoods are challenging TxDOT's proposal to build new, elevated frontage lanes along I-10 inside the I-610 loop. I understand that a key part of their argument is that TxDOT originally proposed the elevated lanes to address flooding in the I-10 main lanes, but TxDOT is now simultaneously proposing to build significant new detention ponds in the same area.

I hope that some of these folks will share more details here. But in the meantime, here's a prototype letter they prepared for concerned property owners and residents to send to elected officials and TxDOT representatives:

Date:
Re: Unacceptable IH-10 elevated service roads between Washington Ave. and T.C. Jester Blvd.
To:

I am a (resident/homeowner/property owner/business owner) in (Woodcrest/Cottage Grove). The Woodcrest and Cottage Grove neighborhoods are adjacent to both the north and south sides of the IH-10 right-of-way.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) plans to construct elevated service roads crossing over the Union Pacific railroad tracks between Washington Avenue and TC Jester Boulevard, which will have severe negative impacts on our neighborhoods. These proposed elevated service roads will decrease both the quality of life and value of my property in (Woodcrest/Cottage Grove/etc).

TXDOT has indicated that plans showing these elevated service roads were presented at a Houston Heights meeting. However, Woodcrest and Cottage Grove are the neighborhoods that will be directly affected if these elevated service roads are constructed. Stakeholders in these communities were neither consulted nor offered the opportunity to review/present any alternatives.

Our neighborhood does not want:

1. Elevated feeder lanes and/or service roads
2. Expansion of at-grade feeder roads
3. Increase in heavy commercial vehicular traffic using elevated lanes
4. Increase in traffic generated noise and air pollution

Our neighborhood does support:

1. Below-grade service roads and/or feeder lanes within existing TXDOT right-of-way
2. Improved and adequate abatement of noise and air pollution
3. Improved and adequate flood water retention and drainage for below-grade lanes
4. Preservation of established trees, landscaping and green space in the IH-10 corridor

We ask your help to insure that alternatives showing more respect for the economic and environmental health of the nearby residents, Cottage Grove Park, and Stevenson Elementary School be developed and that the plan for construction of elevated service lanes be abandoned.

Thank you for your attention,

They plan to hold a multi-community meeting about the frontage lane project in the near future and will keep us posted.

[Linda]

I have been told that the negative impacts of elevated lanes cannot be mitigated by sound walls or with trees because the traffic noise from elevated lanes travels far and bounces around. The consequences in the adjacent neighborhoods and Memorial Park will be consistent and daily, including noise pollution, air pollution, loss of nearby trees. Adding the elevated lanes as a back drop to the ball field and and basket ball court in Cottage Grove Park would be a perfect way to illustrate how we are being paved over. Why are they needed? We were told by TX DOT that the drainage improvements that are being made east of TC Jester will address the drainage system failure that caused the highway to flood during Tropical Storm Allison. We were also told the elevated lanes are designed to provide for a continuous frontage lane route from Taylor to Washington, and that there was not a viable way to do that without interrupting rail use of the tressel east of Washiington during construction. I don't believe that short term inconveniences and rare situations justify expensive elevated lanes that will consistently deliver negative consequences.

[MikePH]

I have been told that the negative impacts of elevated lanes cannot be mitigated by sound walls or with trees because the traffic noise from elevated lanes travels far and bounces around. The consequences in the adjacent neighborhoods and Memorial Park will be consistent and daily, including noise pollution, air pollution, loss of nearby trees. Adding the elevated lanes as a back drop to the ball field and and basket ball court in Cottage Grove Park would be a perfect way to illustrate how we are being paved over. Why are they needed? We were told by TX DOT that the drainage improvements that are being made east of TC Jester will address the drainage system failure that caused the highway to flood during Tropical Storm Allison. We were also told the elevated lanes are designed to provide for a continuous frontage lane route from Taylor to Washington, and that there was not a viable way to do that without interrupting rail use of the tressel east of Washiington during construction. I don't believe that short term inconveniences and rare situations justify expensive elevated lanes that will consistently deliver negative consequences.

In addition, there is the outrageous cost of the Katy Freeway, a virtual fiesta for road builders. Why pay $400 million each for a couple of light rail lines when you can spend a couple of dozen billion for an expressway? This is the very US concept of economic "growth" that arose in the age of cheap fossil fuel.

But there is the very real possibility that few people ten years from now will be using this, or any other road. Based on what the long-term forecast is for energy supply and demand over the next ten years, the cost of energy will be such that only the wealthy could afford. I-10 will end up like all the rest, just another road to nowhere.

[kf5nd]

The Houston Freeways would make great bikeways.

Based on what the long-term forecast is for energy supply and demand over the next ten years, the cost of energy will be such that only the wealthy could afford. I-10 will end up like all the rest, just another road to nowhere.

[JDWilson]

I questioned these frontage roads extensively when they were reviewed by the H-GAC Technical Advisory Council. Unfortunately, although I tried to present the concerns as not being related to the ongoing KCC litigation, they were taken in that regard.

When I pointed out that neither traffic modeling nor neighborhood access concerns justified the frontage roads, TxDOT did not disagree. When I pressed them for an answer, Gabe Johnson angrily explained that it was necessary to evacuate people from I-10 in the event of another Tropical Storm Allison.

I still believe that for the tremendous amount of $$ that are being spent on these unnecessary frontage roads, other solutions could easily be found to get traffic off I-10 during a major flood.

The real reason that these are being built, in my opinion, is that it provides some sense of symmetry and completeness to the freeway system. With incomplete pieces of frontage road scattered along I-10 between downtown and the west loop, it just seems very messy. So TxDOT wants to clean things up a little.

Unfortunately, barring a major change in world view by Gary Trietsch, this project is going to continue. What I find most strange about it is that it marches on in the face of severe competition for cash flow in the transportation sector. Killing this work would free up money to advance other projects that have actual non-TxDOT supporters. It just goes to show that the power of TxDOT is greater than the power of its supporters.

[Linda]

txDOT has agreed to have a public meeting about the expansion project in inside the loop project sometime later this summer. The public meeting will occur seomtime after the Detention pond public meeting now scheduled for June 8 at Sinclair Elementary.

We have met with txDOT and asked why the continuous lanes are needed. Depending on where the meeting was held and who was talking we have heard these reasons cited:

1) overcome flooding on IH 10 (this reason is still mentioned outside the loop, but is retracted when talking with inside the loop project representatives)
2) provide a backup for freeway storm water detention and drainage (we think there are alternatives to the elevated bridges we've seen in the plans over the railroad trestle west of TC Jester)
3) because people want them
4) eliminate confusion
5) provide an emergency route in case something happens

In a recent meeting with txDOT we heard that the freeway design must address a 100 year flood event. Events like Allison exceed that design criteria, but Allison is often mentioned during public discussions.

We have been told that txDOT is working on some alternative designs. While neighbors near TC Jester attended the public meetings about the Katy Corridor (way back when), they all came away only knowing that new frontage lanes were planned by the now built Target at Taylor. The neighbors were not aware of people wanting the feeder lanes between Heights and Shepherd or TC Jester and Washington connected. Were you?

[Bob]

txDOT has agreed to have a public meeting about the expansion project in inside the loop project sometime later this summer. The public meeting will occur seomtime after the Detention pond public meeting scheduled for Thu June 8 at Sinclair Elementary.

Please note this meeting was rescheduled from Tuesday at Reagan. There are not two meetings next week. TxDOT's meeting notice is posted here: http://www.ctchouston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1225

[MikePH]

The Houston Freeways would make great bikeways.

Freeways and tollways could provide plenty of room for bicycling for the more robust elements of the population. Whether the freeways will be too hazardous to use for cycling or anything else depends on how the inevitable financial crash related to energy occurs, slow or punctuated.

The present market pattern seems to be a gradual intersection of the supply and demand curves, sort of a slowly upwardly ratcheting price. There is an increase each year in energy cost followed by demand destruction, inexorably offset in future years by population growth and government-sponsored energy demand stimulants, returning to the beginning of the ratchet cycle. The long-term stress on the present system and universal impoverishment of the US means that the present scheme would gradually fall apart, and the roadway system with it.

The other possibility is there is some seismic shear event, either a war or a decline in oil production, the major contenders are Saudi Arabia and Russia, that would send the cost of energy into a free upward float. Then collapse is global and instantaneous. At that point there will be no problem bicycling the wrong way down the middle of an intact Interstate 10 over Heights Boulevard. Your bicycle could come in handy trying to find food and avoid roving gangs.

I hope people try to think ahead and imagine how mechanized energy interacts with us in millions of unseen ways. Your problem in either scenario strictly as a cyclist will be getting replacement parts for your bike, never mind buying a new one.

[Bob]

On Friday, I called and talked with Dr. Stanley Cooper, TxDOT's project manager for the IH-10 flood mitigation project. He confirmed that the meeting on Thu Jun 8 at Sinclair Elementary is about the proposed detention ponds and pumping station.

Thursday's meeting is a good opportunity to see TxDOT's current plan and assess how they fit in with other area plans like the Eureka hike/bike trail and the proposed Hempstead Managed Lanes. So far, TxDOT has not made schematic drawings available online. So bring your digital camera to the meeting. Ask questions and take notes, including the names of the engineers you talk to.


I also asked Dr. Cooper for the current status of the frontage lanes. He says the frontage lane project, from Washington to Taylor, is currently in the Planning, Specifations, and Estimate (PS&E) phase, which comes before Construction. (The regional Transportation Policy Council (TPC) approved this project for federal funding several years ago.)

Apparently, TxDOT is required to "reevaluate" projects every three years. Since the frontage lanes are not yet in construction, they must nominally reevaluate them again. TxDOT expects to complete the "work authorization" next week to then do the reevaluation and get clearance to build.

Dr. Cooper acknowledged that TxDOT is "revisiting the ramping situation" because of some issues. However, they intend to get those decisions made before they come back to the public. The next public meeting for this project will likely be in the fall, and is intended to present their final design before letting the contract for construction.

That means time is running out on this project. If neighborhoods along IH-10 want to shape the frontage lane project, it's time to both engage local elected officials and send letters to TxDOT (be sure to reference "IH-10 frontage lanes from Washington to Taylor"):

Director of Project Development
Texas Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 1386, Houston, Texas, 77251-1386

Finally, we have posted several updates to CTC's new IH-10 inside-the-loop fact sheet. Be sure to see Christof's schematic comparing the current and proposed layouts, and TxDOT's preliminary drawings here: http://ctchouston.org/information/factsheets/i10inner/i10inner.shtml

[Linda]

"Dr. Cooper acknowledged that TxDOT is "revisiting the ramping situation" because of some issues. However, they intend to get those decisions made before they come back to the public. The next public meeting for this project will likely be in the fall, and is intended to present their final design before letting the contract for construction."

That is alarming news if I understand the message clearly. TXDOT's Pat Heny agreed in April of 2006 to meet with Cottage Grove and Woodcrest neighbors before the proposed I-10 Expansion Plan Public Meeting. How disappointing to find out that Mr. Henry he might have meant we would meet with TXDOT after decisions were made and before our review of the proposed revisions. I wonder if both Mr. Cooper and Mr. Henry speak for TXDOT on the Expansion Plans inside the loop?

[Bob]

When I said "time is running out on this project," I only meant "do not wait until the fall public meeting to start working with TxDOT and elected leaders." The next few months are critical.

Keep in mind that Dr. Cooper is NOT the project manager for the frontage lanes project, so he may not have all the plans at his disposal. Do we know who the PM is for the frontage lanes?

Also keep in mind that when TxDOT "meets with the public" that's different than an official "public meeting." The next official "public meeting" may really be in late summer or fall. But if Pat Henry agreed to meet with the community sooner than later, you can take him at his word. I would work towards having that meeting in the next 5-6 weeks.

Between now and then, it's important to keep educating more people about the project and potential impacts so they can participate more effectively. I recommend reaching out to each of the affected neighborhoods in the corridor. If anyone schedules a community meeting, post the details here. Also feel free to share regular meeting dates for Woodcrest, Heights West, Old West End, First Ward, Woodland Heights, Cottage Grove, and others here as well.

[Tracy Halliday]

Hello All,
I am a future resident of one of the areas proposed to be a flood mitigation pond. We are currently building a home and are having difficulties with the city of houston setting up water service in the area, which prompted me to get in contact with one of our future neighbors ( a developer ) who informed me of this situation. Just wondering if anyone had any new info on this? What can we do to get involved? I saw there was a public meeting, but I was not aware of the situation at that time. Is it too late to send the letter posted above? Being a resident of the area, is there someone I can contact directly?
We are right in the middle of "pond A3". It is not in any specific subdivision such as Cottage Grove or West End. The land in this area has been purchased by both several different individuals and a developer, we don't want to lose our property and homes! Any insight would be GREATLY appreciated.
Thanks!
Tracy Halliday

[Bob]

Is it too late to send the letter posted above? Being a resident of the area, is there someone I can contact directly?

I would still send your letter and contact Dr. Stanley Cooper, TxDOT's project manager for the detention pond project. I believe the environmental assessment stage of this project will continue for several more months.

One of the other locals may have more recent and more detailed info. Anyone?

[Bob]

Tom Manning's story last Thursday from the Houston Chronicle's Heights/Neartown news section features several CTC volunteers and ends on a scary note:

July 20, 2006, 12:33PM
TxDOT hears noise about I-1O idea
Plan includes elevated frontage lanes on both sides of interstate

By TOM MANNING
Chronicle Correspondent

A Texas Department of Transportation project that would create elevated frontage lanes along a stretch of Interstate 10, west of TC Jester Boulevard, has a number of neighborhoods in the area seeing red.

TxDOT has plans to build the elevated frontage lanes as part of its $40 million effort to create a continuous feeder road system along I-10 between Washington Avenue and Taylor Street.

Linda Mercer, a resident of Cottage Grove, a community north of I-10 between TC Jester and Washington, said that if the frontage lanes are built 30 feet above grade, nothing will be able to be done to lessen the noise and pollution that will come with them.

"It would introduce an aesthetic to the neighborhood that we can't even imagine," said Mercer, who also is vice president of the White Oak Bayou Association. "There will be an industrial quality to the neighborhood. What you see along the frontage lanes in Cottage Grove now is largely residential because it's not too bad to live there. This would destroy that."

TxDOT project developer Jim Heacock said there are gaps in the frontage road system in three places along that stretch:

•Eastbound between Taylor and Studemont;
•Both east and westbound between Patterson and Heights Boulevard; and
•The area where the Union Pacific tracks cross I-10 between Washington and TC Jester.
It's at that third gap where TxDOT wants to build 30-foot-high, two-lane frontage roads on both sides of the interstate, Heacock said.

Construction of the project is expected to commence in September 2007 and last about two years, he said.

The plan is part of a larger flood-mitigation project along I-10 being designed by the transportation department.

Along with revamping the feeder road system, TxDOT also is planning to build flood mitigation ponds at a number of locations along White Oak Bayou, Heacock said.

The six-mile stretch of I-10 from the 610 West Loop east to Interstate 45 is below grade and flooded near White Oak Bayou during Tropical Storm Allison in 2001.

"(It) was initially developed as part of the Katy Freeway expansion project in 1999 and 2000," Heacock said. "Then during Allison when the main lanes flooded it became an issue of flooding, as well as just feeder-lane continuity."

But residents of Cottage Grove, Woodcrest and other West End neighborhoods say the detention ponds being proposed would provide enough flood mitigation to make the rest of the project unnecessary.

"Building the ponds takes away a lot of the argument that you need these elevated lanes for flooding reasons," Mercer said. "It's hard to pin down why exactly the continuous lanes are needed. I don't see the need for them."

Residents also argue that elevated frontage lanes would create major noise and air pollution in their communities.

They want any additional service roads along I-10 to be built below grade and within existing right of way, with steps being taken to reduce noise and air pollution.

"What we have now is something the neighborhood is comfortable living with," said Monica Savino, vice president of the Woodcrest Neighborhood Civic Association. "(The project) would double or triple the amount of noise we have now, and that's a disaster."

Tom Dornbusch, president of the WNCA, said that when the stretch of I-10 inside the loop was built, TxDOT took steps to lessen the freeway's negative effects on neighborhoods.

"In the 1960s the neighborhoods negotiated with TxDOT to get it below grade in exchange for all the houses that were lost," Dornbusch said. "What we want to see is the frontage lanes built below the (Union Pacific) railroad tracks."

Heacock said building the lanes below the tracks is unfeasible.

"They just won't fit under there," he said.

But with the proposed feeder lanes on the north side of I-10 just east of Cottage Grove Park, the park, and homes nearby, would see an increase in noise and pollution that will drive people out of the neighborhood, Dornbusch said.

"All of the sound that comes off the hard surfacing is just going to magnify," Dornbusch said, pointing to the inability to create any noise barriers to mitigate sound that is going to come from above the neighborhood.

Heacock said TxDOT will take measures to mitigate the sound coming off the elevated lanes, but added the concerns over a dramatic increase in noise were being overstated.

"Traffic on bridges are much less than on main lanes," he said. "There are fewer vehicles on the bridges and they are traveling at a lower speed. Bridges can also reduce the amount of traffic noise coming off the main lanes. We may be able to put some noise barriers up under the bridges."

Mercer said the elevated lanes would also lead to more neighborhood traffic, since local traffic that nowuses the feeder lanes won't be able to once they elevate.

"There would definitely be reduced local access heading west," she said. "It will lead to much more traffic on neighborhood streets."

Other neighborhoods are also fighting the proposed elevated roads.

Scott Johnson, president of the Camp Logan Memorial Civic Club, a community located just west of Woodcrest, wrote in a letter to TxDOT dated June 17 that, "The idea of large trucks bellowing up a steep grade of the overpass and projecting their noise into our homes from an elevated position 30 feet above grade is almost beyond the ability to comprehend."

Neighborhood representatives have been meeting with TxDOT to discuss the project, including an Apr. 12 meeting hosted by District H City Councilman Adrian Garcia.

In June, TxDOT told residents that plans for the frontage lanes west of TC Jester were "on hold" as the department considered its alternatives.

But it is now ready to move on the plan as it was initially developed, Heacock said.

"We've listened to the concerns of the neighborhood and are planning to move forward."

He added that while he does not anticipate any further official public involvement in the project, TxDOT will continue to work with community members to try to address concerns.

"We could move forward right now without any more public input," Heacock said, "but we want to work with the different neighborhood associations and the city."

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/heights/news/4053301.html

Paper copies of the story will be available from the Chronicle's downtown office for 30 days at $.25 each.

[Linda]

One of the other locals may have more recent and more detailed info. Anyone?

TXDOT's Stanley Cooper said in a phone call on Sept 21 we should anticipate public meeting in 2007, and that submitted comments are being processed in Austin now.

[Linda]

Tom Manning's story last Thursday from the Houston Chronicle's Heights/Neartown news section features several CTC volunteers and ends on a scary note:

The Houston Chroncicle ran another story on August 4 by Tom Manning announcing the news that Mayor White brought to a Cottage Grove Civic Club meeting on August 3: TXDOT had determined to remove the elevated structures from the plans. In Sept, at a TXDOT presentation during a Heights West meeting, Jim Heacock and Pat Henry provided a revised sketch of the expansion inside the loop to show that the elevated frontage lanes between TC Jester and Washington had been scrapped. A copy of the revised drawing is available at www.CottageGroveHouston.org.

[Bob]

Three years later, there is action coming on the proposed reconstruction of IH-10 inside the loop.

In Oct 2009, the Houston region's Transportation Policy Council (TPC) voted to approve revised priority lists for projects to receive stimulus funds under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA). On TxDOT's project list (pdf), the next project on the contingency list to receive funds is the reconstruction of IH-10 inside the loop from Washington Ave to Sawyer/Taylor. (Since Grand Parkway segment E was not shovel ready, it has been removed from the list and the IH-10 project is expected to move up.) The inner IH-10 reconstruction project is estimated to cost $88 million, and includes:

• reconstructing parts of the main lanes
• reconstructing four bridges at White Oak Bayou, Durham, and Shepherd, and
• adding frontage roads along two segments that don't have them today:

Over White Oak Bayou between Patterson St and Yale Blvd (click for larger):


Next to White Oak Bayou between Studemont St and Sawyer/Taylor (click for larger):


You can download and review all of the project schematics (last updated 2006) from the KatyFreeway.net project website:

• 74 UPRR (pdf)
• 75 Washington Ave (pdf)
• 76 TC Jester (pdf)
• 77 Durham and Shepherd (pdf)
• 78 Patterson (pdf)
• 79 Yale Heights (pdf)
• 80 Studemont Taylor (pdf)

TxDOT proposes to let these construction contracts by Mar 2010. Given how long it's been since the last public meetings about this project, and how much development has occurred in the three years intervening, TxDOT should hold a public meeting before they let the contracts. Several neighborhood leaders from this area are asking for an evening meeting in December (before the holidays) to allow residents and property owners to review the current design documents, including both schematics and elevations.

Any interested citizen may request that a public hearing be held covering the social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed project by mailing or delivering a written request to:

Director of Project Development
Texas Department of Transportation
PO Box 1386 Houston TX 77251-1386

The companion IH-10 detention project has a deadline for public requests of Tuesday, Dec 22, 2009, so that's probably a good target for this project, too.

[Bob]

TxDOT proposes to let these construction contracts by Mar 2010.

I learned this morning from Delvin Dennis that TxDOT intends to let the IH-10 roadway contracts in January 2010, rather than March as previously published.

TxDOT faces a Mar 2010 deadline to obligate stimulus funds. However, given how much new development has occurred in this area in the last 4-5 years, given the sensitivity of the adjacent bayou, and given neighborhood concerns over elevations, access, and noise, it behooves TxDOT to let public eyes and minds validate the final design.

We strongly urge TxDOT to hold a public hearing for this project, in Jan 2010, before moving forward to let contracts.

[TomD]

...and given neighborhood concerns over elevations, access, and noise, it behooves TxDOT to let public eyes and minds validate the final design.

I recall asking the TxDOT rep at a long ago public meeting when the frontage road project was presented, how the Heights/Yale segment was to be made continuous and the response was that the feeder lanes would be elevated to overpass the two streets as the mainlanes do. I would be, and I'd bet residents of that immediate area would also be, very interested to know if that is still a part of the plan.

[Ed Browne]

I recall asking the TxDOT rep at a long ago public meeting when the frontage road project was presented, how the Heights/Yale segment was to be made continuous and the response was that the feeder lanes would be elevated to overpass the two streets as the mainlanes do. I would be, and I'd bet residents of that immediate area would also be, very interested to know if that is still a part of the plan.

Would it be like other sections of I-10 where they add a lane that is contiguous until the next exit? That is, you wouldn't merge with the main lanes if you plan to get off at the next exit. KCC was pushing that idea.

[TomD]

Would it be like other sections of I-10 where they add a lane that is contiguous until the next exit?

Possibly, I don't recall that specific. Pat Henry has indicated that a TxDOT representative will attend the West End Civic Club meeting on Thursday, 12/09, to update residents on the frontage road plan. So we'll hopefully have a clearer understanding following that event. When this is absolutely confirmed, I'll post more details about the meeting time and location. The meeting will be open for general public attendance.

[Ian]

In the early 2000s, TxDOT seriously considered changing its frontage road policy from "build them everywhere" to "build them sparingly." After a lot of public pressure from speculative landowners, TxDOT abandoned the idea. But it makes you really wonder why they would be trying to build new frontage roads where nobody particularly wants them. . .

Here are some resources on the briefly-considered policy change:

Comptroller's summary of the policy

One of the main arguments in favor of curtailing the construction of frontage roads--and one of TxDOT's major reasons for proposing the change'is their cost. TxDOT estimates that frontage roads cost about $1.5 million a mile on average in addition to maintenance costs, producing a continuing drain on a limited construction budget.

TxDOT frontage road policy Q&A

Vehicles entering the frontage road or freeway conflict with faster moving vehicles, thereby contributing to congestion and crash frequency.

. . .

Frontage roads often result in commercial and private development immediately adjacent to the freeway. This consistently leads to numerous access problems, main lane speed reductions, safety concerns and overall operational problems to the freeway.

Also, this change in TxDOT procedure, as reported by Carolyn Feibel yesterday, seems particularly timely and appropriate:

Journalistically speaking, it's not “a really sexy deal,” urban planner Scott Polikov confessed to me. But it's a really big deal for transportation, nonetheless.

Polikov, a Fort Worth-based planner, was talking about the Texas Department of Transportation's decision to revise its Project Development Process Manual, the “how to” book that guides road planning in our state. Polikov says TxDOT is the first state transportation agencyin the country to include community needs in its manual, including those of neighborhoods along a proposed road, local residents, walkers, bikers, commercial developers and cities.

One might assume that transportation planners would already be taking such things into consideration while designing a highway or road. But that's not the case. Roads tend to get planned in a vacuum, Polikov said, with the road isolated from its context and viewed only as a way to get cars quickly from one place to another. If the nearby land use is considered at all, it's mostly in a reactive mode, as engineers strive to minimize noise and other negative impacts.

The new approach, known as “context sensitive,” gives TxDOT engineers a method for evaluating a road's surroundings before they design and build it. They can look at the nearby street grid, local economic plans, the recreational or commercial situation and the potential “walkability” of an area.

Previously, TxDOT “did not have the tools available to think beyond the curb line,” Polikov said. This created a recurring “design-defend” scenario across the state: TxDOT would design a road project, bring it to the local community stakeholders and defend it at public hearings that could get contentious.

Now, TxDOT workers can use the steps in the manual to include local stakeholders in discussions before they design a road, not after. The new process should also energize the local tax base along the road, Polikov said, because if a road is designed to fit better with a local neighborhood, it will attract better development, more attractive housing and more shoppers and residents.

“You'll get higher real estate values,” Polikov said. “The light went off for TxDOT that this is good business for the agency.”

Few at TxDOT are even aware of the changes, said Polikov, who served on the committee that devised the revisions. Training programs are just getting going for the department.

[TomD]

A West End neighbor has downloaded, converted to PDF, and posted the updated as of 11/09 IH10 - Washington to Taylor - expansion and frontage road plans at:
http://www.weborich.com/I-10

[jboyd]

Moved to
http://www.ctchouston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8249#8249

[jboyd]

From the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual:

"Design speeds for frontage roads are a factor in the design of the roadway. For consistency, design speeds should be used that match values used for collector streets or highways. For urban frontage roads, the desirable design speed is 50 mph [80 km/h] and the minimum design speed is 30 mph [50 km/h]."

Has anyone asked TxDOT about the design speed for these feeders?

[TomD]

Nice stuff in the new design guidelines.
It'll be interesting to see how this get's implemented and where the loopholes are.
Unfortunately the IH10, Washington Ave widening north of IH10, and the MKT detention/conveyance channel projects all began pre-adoption, and are probably grandfathered out.

[Bob]

I learned this morning from Delvin Dennis that TxDOT intends to let the IH-10 roadway contracts in January 2010, rather than March as previously published.

On December 22, 2009, CTC's board submitted a letter to TxDOT regarding the proposed IH-10 frontage roads and detention (1.5 mb PDF). Key messages:

• TxDOT is proposing to advance the project to build new frontage roads along IH-10 but NOT the corresponding flood mitigation project. Given the potential adverse flooding impacts to adjacent neighborhoods in the White Oak Bayou watershed, it is imperative that TxDOT construct all necessary detention ponds for new frontage roads before or contemporaneous with their construction.
  
• TxDOT has not hosted a public meeting regarding this project since 2003, and the area has attracted thousands of new residents and businesses in the interim. We urge TxDOT to hold a public hearing for both the frontage road project and the corresponding detention pond project, in January 2010, before moving forward to let contracts.
  
• Volunteer engineering resources have identified several critical issues with TxDOT's current frontage road design, that must be addressed before committing this project to concrete, including:
  • Replacement frontage road bridges over White Oak Bayou west of Studemont are proposed below the effective base flood elevation, a level that violates the City of Houston Floodplain ordinance and will contribute to neighborhood flooding;
  • Significant fill and a new retaining wall proposed near Patterson and Kolb would effectively dam off White Oak Bayou from spilling into IH-10, significantly reducing the effective flood storage capacity of White Oak Bayou; however, the current project does not include adequate mitigation for this loss of flood storage capacity; and
  • The proposed eastbound exit ramp to Taylor, though short, is adequate today because there is no frontage road; but when ramp traffic must compete with eastbound frontage traffic, the merge distance between the ramp and the intersection will be inadequate, increasing traffic conflicts and crash risk.
• Across the country and around the world, engineering best practice discourages the addition of frontage roads. The $88 million TxDOT proposes to spend adding frontage roads to IH-10 between Washington and Taylor could be much better spent on another project that either performs much-needed maintenance or addresses a bottleneck on the existing system.

[Bob]

Mark your calendar for a public meeting on Wed Jan 6, 2010 at 6:30 pm regarding the proposed IH-10 frontage roads:

Dear Community Leaders,

State Representative Jessica Farrar will host an informational meeting on TXDot's I-10 Feeder Road Project Wednesday, January 6, 2010 from 6:30-7:30pm at Stevenson Elementary (5410 Cornish St, 77007).

If you have any questions regarding this project, we encourage you to attend this important meeting. TXDot representatives will be available to explain their plans for construction and answer questions.

Please help us spread the word to your members.

If you have any questions or if you need additional information, feel free to contact me.

Hope to see you Jan. 6!
Alicia
_______________________
Alicia Nuzzie
District Director
State Representative Jessica Farrar-District 148
P.O. Box 30099 Houston, TX 77249
Phone 713-691-6912 Fax 713-691-3363 alicia.nuzzie@house.state.tx.us

[TomD]

Is this "informational meeting" likely to be viewed as TxDOT fulfilling the request for a "public hearing" thereby skirting the responsibility for a formal comment period?

[Bob]

Is this "informational meeting" likely to be viewed as TxDOT fulfilling the request for a "public hearing" thereby skirting the responsibility for a formal comment period?

Possibly. But I know TxDOT engineers are capable of addressing the bigger picture issues if they're allowed to. They may yet do the right thing on their own. Alternately, as a state agency, TxDOT is ultimately accountable to our elected leaders, who can insist.

[Bob]

Check out the White Oak Bayou Association's letter to TxDOT (pdf) regarding the frontage road project. Great letter!

[TomD]

Alternately, as a state agency, TxDOT is ultimately accountable to our elected leaders, who can insist.

I am concerned about the 1 hour allotted meeting time, and how the meeting may be formatted.
Stevenson Elementary is not ideal for auditorium presentations.
There are only child-sized cafeteria tables/stools that are neither easily, nor likely to be replaced with adult auditorium seating.

Those two facts make me suspect that this will be an "open house" format that will not allow time for open forum Q&A.

While I appreciate the effort by Representative Farrar's office, I fear she may not fully understand that this will not satisfy her constituents' expectations.

We should not accept this in lieu of a public hearing with a formal comment period.

[Bob]

I just watched KHOU's 10 o'clock newscast. Jeremy Desel pulled together a solid story about the IH-10 frontage project, and found a sympathetic resident to interview. He gave it a full three minutes (which is as good as it gets) as the second story behind the freeze warning and ahead of the inauguration.

The video isn't up yet, but a variation on his story is already on the web:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Feeder-Roads-coming-to-I-10-inside-the-loop-80673147.html

Good stuff!

[carolcaul]

I may not be able to make the meeting since I got tagged for jury duty in the afternoon.

I agree with everything said, particularly the flooding and drainage implications for the project.

Do not forget the ongoing significant downstream litigation for inverse condemnation.

Also, I have not had a chance to see if TxDOT has obtained all necessary Corps of Engineer permits for (Sec 404 CWA) the project. Does anyone know?

Lastly, if stimulus funds are to be used to build this project--which is wasteful and an environmental and property rights nightmare, then at least stimulus funds should be used to construct all necessary drainage and flooding mitigation upstream and downstream to mitigate all foreseeable (direct, indirect, and cumulative) impacts.

[jboyd]

Tom Dornbusch reports on Representative Jessica Farrar's meeting.

An informational meeting on TxDOT's IH-10 (Washington Ave. to Taylor St.) frontage road project on January 6 hosted by State Representative Jessica Farrar drew attendance of XXX. (I’ve contacted Alicia Nuzzie for this #, but nothing’s back yet) Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and District H Councilmember Ed Gonzalez, along with representatives of other city council districts and offices, were among the speakers and attendees.

This project has had no public hearing and no formal comment period since 2003 when it was presented as part of the larger IH-10 expansion outside Loop 610. At that time, little to no response came from inside the Loop. Residents of the neighborhoods within the project’s immediate impact area, where significant residential and commercial development has occurred in the intervening years, had hoped that TxDOT might hear further public comment before moving forward with letting contracts for the project. The TxDOT representative who opened the meeting squelched that anticipation by announcing that contracts had been let earlier in the day. Phased construction is expected to begin in March and will require approximately three years to complete.

This 88 million in federal stimulus dollars would have been better applied to more meaningful transportation solutions. Current "best practice" across the US and around the world discourages the construction of frontage roads. They bring commercial and private development immediately adjacent to the freeway causing access problems, main lane speed reductions, and safety concerns. The freeway reaches capacity more quickly and this ultimately manifests as a need for further mainlane expansion.

One of the two locations where this project does include widening of the mainlanes is on the Heights/Yale overpass. This widening is necessary to make new entry/exit ramps possible. The other mainlane widening will be in conjunction with new bridges over White Oak Bayou near Taylor Street. Concerns were raised over the fact that those bridges are to be constructed at clearance elevations below the City of Houston standards for structures in floodplains. The City’s PWE Dept. is reviewing this, and also evaluating the possibility of negative traffic impacts that may result from the planned frontage lane at a reconfigured Taylor Street exit.

Many attendees at the meeting questioned the nature of, and expressed their concerns about adequate capacity, in associated stormwater detention pond facilities that must be constructed nearby to mitigate the impact from this roadway expansion project. Two locations have been targeted north of White Oak Bayou in the Shepherd/Patterson area to accommodate the ponds. Residents want these to be multi-purpose recreational/green community amenities rather than inaccessible pits. TxDOT states this is outside their purview, and that funding for such enhancements is not included in the project budget. The Congresswoman and State Representative assured residents that these concerns would continue to be considered and addressed.

A public hearing related to the detention facility plans is scheduled for Thursday, February 18th, 6:00P at Reagan High School.

[TomD]

A meeting attendance count of 120 has now been received from Representative Farrar's office.

[Bob]

At their Feb 15, 2010 board meeting, the Houston Heights Association formally adopted a resolution calling on TxDOT to work with the neighborhood to address key concerns prior to beginning construction of the new frontage roads:

Because of its mission to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the Heights, the Houston Heights Association is opposed in principle to road construction or other infrastructure projects that could generate increased congestion or risk of flooding in our historic neighborhood.

In the case of the proposed TxDOT project to construct access ramps at Yale Street to and from Interstate 10, based on information brought before us:

(1) We consider that the project may lead to a significant increase in traffic volumes for through traffic between the 610 Loop and Interstate 10 that does not have its origin or destination within the Heights, resulting in an increase in traffic congestion in our historic neighborhood; and

(2) As currently planned, we consider that the project may pose a risk of increased flooding in our historic neighborhood; and

(3) The Houston Heights Association specifically requests that TxDOT apply its new policy of Context Sensitive Design to this project and coordinate with City of Houston, the Harris County Flood Control District and the community; and

(4) The Houston Heights Association requests that all flood water detention and mitigation issues be addressed and implemented concurrently with road construction.

The Houston Heights Association welcomes the opportunity to work with TxDOT and our elected officials to address these issues. However, without further study and any necessary actions to alleviate these community concerns, the Heights Association is opposed to the current execution of the project.