2/9/25 – Northpark Drive expansion has become a bewildering maze of lane switches and traffic barriers where SUVs tango daily with excavators and dump trucks. All of that makes for life in the slow lane … which can actually be a good thing given the potential for accidents.
Since my last construction update, contractors have removed the old:
Eastbound pavement between Kings Mill and Russell Palmer Road
Loop 494 Northbound pavement on both sides of Northpark
They have also substantially completed the installation of storm sewers underneath the westbound surface turn lanes that will parallel the bridge over the UnionPacific Railroad Tracks and Loop 494. However, crews still need to install many laterals.
Pictures Taken 2/9/25
I took all pictures below on 2/9/25. They show the status of construction. If traffic looks light in these photos, it’s likely because I took them during the pregame show for the Super Bowl.
Looking east from in front of Italiano’s.The old eastbound pavement has been completely removed.
Before contractors pour new concrete, they will have to install drainage, compact the dirt, prepare the base, and place rebar. All of that could take another month or more.
As soon as they finish the drainage on eastbound Northpark between Italiano’s and Russell Palmer the same crew will rotate to the northeast side of the Loop 494/Northpark intersection then the southeast side. Again, once the drainage is complete, they will begin to prepare the sub-grade, then rebar, then concrete paving.
Looking W from in front of Kings Mill Entrance (bottom left). Crews have spent the last several months installing large culverts.They have moved from E to W toward the railroad tracks. They still need to install some laterals.The surface turn lanes that parallel the bridge over the railroad tracks and Loop 494 will go in the area between the existing lanes (left) and the new power lines (right).Wider, longer turn lanes and thru lanes will also be installed on Loop 494, shown here looking south from over Northpark.
The southbound lanes of Loop 494 south of Northpark are complete! So are the driveways!
Ditto for the north side.On the west side of 494, some power lines that need to be moved are still holding up construction (see lower right).But farther west, two new lanes have been poured that now go all the way to US59 at the top of the frame.
The lookahead schedule posted on the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website shows major efforts for the next three weeks include installation of:
Fire lines, water lines, water meters
Box culverts and laterals
Sub grade and fine grade prep
In other words, no big concrete pours for a while.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20250209-DJI_20250209145602_0847_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-02-09 18:30:192025-02-10 14:49:14Northpark Drive Expansion Update: Life in the Slow Lane
2/8/2025 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has finally released the full text of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering Review and its supporting files. The report, which was originally due in 300 days took more than 1400 days. When asked why it took so long, a HCFCD representative replied, “Personnel turnover.”
See links to all of them at the bottom of this post.
Preliminary Engineering Study of Kingwood Diversion Ditch produced by Neel-Schaffer
Altogether, the 175 megabytes of materials include hundreds of pages. I could not even post some files because they exceeded the size limit of my website or because they were engineering files that required specialized software to open.
I have uploaded what I can. However, I have not studied them all thoroughly yet. Based on a preliminary scan, here are some of the highlights.
Three Alternatives Evaluated
Neel-Schaffer, the engineering company that produced the report, considered three alternatives. Each improves stormwater carrying capacity of the ditch and relieves some of the pressure on Bens Branch. The two are connected near the Northpark Drive Fireworks Stand. The three alternatives include the following features:
Alternative 1 – A widened Kingwood Diversion Ditch including grass-lined trapezoidal channel, one drop structure and a new outfall of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch to West Fork San Jacinto River.
Alternative 2 – A widened Kingwood Diversion Ditch including a benched channel section above Ordinary High-Water Mark, two drop structures and a new outfall of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch to West Fork San Jacinto River.
Alternative 3 – A widened Kingwood Diversion Ditch including a Natural Stable Channel Design Sections with riffle and pools and a new outfall of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch to West Fork San Jacinto River.
Alternative #3 Recommended
For each alternative, Neel-Schaffer examined:
Hydraulic performance
Increased channel conveyance capacity
Costs and benefits in relation to the reduction in the area of inundation
Environmental impacts
Construction feasibility.
The engineers recommended Alternative 3 after comparing:
Capital cost estimates
Stormwater detention cost estimates
Maintenance costs per 10 years
Number of parcels, acres and structures removed from the 1% annual chance floodplain
The table below summarizes their benefits.
Even though alternative #3 was the most expensive to construct, lower maintenance costs would offset the increase within 28 years.
Features Included in Recommendation
The recommended project alternative includes:
A diversion structure at the intersection of the Diversion Ditch and Bens Branch to reduce the volume flowing into Bens Branch
Channel conveyance improvements to the Diversion Ditch
Bridge replacements at Kingwood Drive, Walnut Lane, Deer Ridge Estates Boulevard and the pedestrian bridge at Lake Village Drive
A new outfall to the West Fork San Jacinto River, just west of Woodland Hills Drive/River Grove Park
A stormwater detention basin on the south side of the San Jacinto West Fork.
In each alternative, stormwater flow to Bens Branch was restricted by pipes. That forces more stormwater into the expanded Diversion Ditch.
The Flood Control District’s guidelines allow for the use of a minimum pipe diameter of 24-inches. That would take enough stormwater flow out of Bens Branch to improve it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.
Remember, the function of the Diversion Ditch is to take stormwater out of Bens Branch. Friendswood hoped to minimize flooding through the western half of Kingwood by using two channels instead of one to convey stormwater.
Detention Basin Also Recommended South of West Fork
Neel-Schaffer also evaluated the need for stormwater detention storage volume to mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed alternatives. They recommend one across the West Fork on high ground.
Neel-Schaffer recommended the green-colored basin south of the West Fork (#1).(Bottom Center)
Funding Not Identified Yet
Funding does not currently exist for any construction. HCFCD would have to apply for grants. The Preliminary Engineering Report outlines several possible sources of funding. However, Stephanie Zertuche, Flood Control’s Project Manager, says that pursuit will likely happen as part of the next phase – construction engineering – when costs are locked down.
However, that assumes that the project even gets that far. $55 million to remove 34 structures from the 100-year flood plain will be a difficult sell based on the Benefit/Cost Analysis alone.
But there are other factors to consider. We shouldn’t forget that:
12 people died along Bens Branch during Harvey.
The entire Kingwood Town Center area was under water
Thousands of people got cut off from evacuation routes.
Kingwood High School flooded to the second floor and thousands of students had to be bussed to other schools for a year.
Social benefits go far beyond cost and are hard to quantify.
To Review the Original Docs…
Below are links to all the Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering Report documents.
If you are an engineer in the Humble/Kingwood Area, please help. Send me your opinions through the contact page of this website.
Even if you don’t read the entire study, you may be interested in seeing where your home stands in relation to the new expanded floodplains under Atlas 14. Those inundation maps at the bottom of the list are very interesting.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/25
2720 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/KW-Diversion-Ditch-PER-Cover.jpg?fit=1100%2C803&ssl=18031100adminadmin2025-02-08 12:01:152025-02-09 17:22:51Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering Review Released
2/6/2025 – Fireworks erupted in Harris County Commissioners Court today over the 2018 Flood Bond and Subdivision Drainage shortfalls. It was a rare display of bipartisan outrage.
All four commissioners and the county judge expressed concerns about budget shortfalls. The County Engineer, the Head of the Flood Control District, the County Budget Manager and the County Administrator all took turns in the crosshairs when it became clear that the County didn’t have enough money to deliver flood-mitigation projects promised long ago.
That said, the cost of subdivision drainage projects alone increased from $451 million to $590 million since 2018. Comparable figures were not provided for flood-bond projects although the July 2024 Flood Bond Update alluded to 33 projects that have “uncertainty about whether current funding levels are sufficient to take the associated projects through construction.”
Reasons cited for the subdivision drainage project budget shortfall included 30-35% inflation in the construction sector, scope creep, additional projects, and adoption of higher Atlas-14 rainfall standards after passage of the flood bond. Atlas 14 requires projects to handle larger rainfall events than the previous standards.
Reasons cited for the bond-project funding uncertainty included “inflationary pressures and the rising cost of property acquisition, as well as potential schedule impacts due to inclement weather, supply chain pressures, and regulatory changes.”
“An Abysmal Failure” and Loss of Trust
During the contentious 24-minute discussion, the County Judge said that the county needs another flood bond.
Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis said that he would campaign against it. Ellis also accused the County Engineer of ignoring the county’s equity plan.
“This is an abysmal failure to deliver on the bond issue.”
Rodney Ellis, Harris County Precinct 1 Commissioner
Ellis also said, “It would be very challenging to go to voters in Precinct One [and ask them] to ever trust this county with money again … even to trust me. … This is an abomination.”
We haven’t heard the last of this. Ellis addressing the county engineer said, “So, you would have a $150 million hole before you discovered there was a problem. I’m just curious about all of the bureaucracy we put in place. I’m a person who voted to have a county administrator, our deputy county administrators … paying the best money, if not in the state, in the country for these folks.”
Ellis continued, “I’m curious to know, when did the county manager know about it? When did the deputy county administrator know about it, and when did the Budget Office know about it? When did you all discover it? Is it tracked by anybody?”
“Major Crisis” with No Sense of Urgency
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, said, “This is a major crisis. I sense no urgency from flood control. I sense no urgency from the county engineer’s office. And I don’t sense any urgency from the county administrator.”
Ramsey also said, “We need to go back and take a look at it, but there needs to be an adult in room to be sure that we get honest answers back.”
“Utter Dismay. Frustration. Shock.”
Normally restrained Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones said, “I share my colleague’s complete and utter dismay. Frustration. Shock.” She emphasized that the county needed to find solutions for both the subdivision drainage projects and the flood bond.
“This is not OK,” she said. “And we need to get it done with a sense of urgency.” Then in a thinly veiled threat, she added, “If we’re not being clear, I don’t want to go back to the policy about wages. But when we say something, we mean it.” Commissioners recently voted department heads large pay increases.
Before finishing, Briones emphasized that Flood Bond Projects, not just subdivision drainage projects needed to be completed also.
Motion to Revisit Issue on March 27 Unanimously Approved
In the end, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion to direct the Office of Management and Budget “to work with flood control, county engineering, and any relevant departments to return to court on March 27 with proposed options and recommendations using any and all county resources for closing the shortfall on the Harris County Engineering Department Subdivision Drainage Program and ensuring the implementation of the flood bond framework adopted by Commissioners Court.”
Commissioner Ramsey offered a friendly amendment. “The financial analysis should include, at a minimum, the entire program showing all projects completed. Projects under construction with any potential changes in contract. Active projects awaiting funding. Remaining available funds for all projects now that the project budgets have been increased.”
The motion with the amendment carried unanimously.
Video of Meeting
You can view the entire discussion and vote on the motion at this link. Click on Departments (Part 2 of 3). Then scroll forward to 3:24:01. You’re looking for item 217.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/6/2025
2718 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20250206-CC-court.jpg?fit=1100%2C624&ssl=16241100adminadmin2025-02-06 22:14:092025-02-07 13:08:41Flood Bond, Subdivision Drainage Shortfalls Prompt Harsh Words From Commissioners
Northpark Drive Expansion Update: Life in the Slow Lane
2/9/25 – Northpark Drive expansion has become a bewildering maze of lane switches and traffic barriers where SUVs tango daily with excavators and dump trucks. All of that makes for life in the slow lane … which can actually be a good thing given the potential for accidents.
Since my last construction update, contractors have removed the old:
They have also substantially completed the installation of storm sewers underneath the westbound surface turn lanes that will parallel the bridge over the UnionPacific Railroad Tracks and Loop 494. However, crews still need to install many laterals.
Pictures Taken 2/9/25
I took all pictures below on 2/9/25. They show the status of construction. If traffic looks light in these photos, it’s likely because I took them during the pregame show for the Super Bowl.
Before contractors pour new concrete, they will have to install drainage, compact the dirt, prepare the base, and place rebar. All of that could take another month or more.
As soon as they finish the drainage on eastbound Northpark between Italiano’s and Russell Palmer the same crew will rotate to the northeast side of the Loop 494/Northpark intersection then the southeast side. Again, once the drainage is complete, they will begin to prepare the sub-grade, then rebar, then concrete paving.
The southbound lanes of Loop 494 south of Northpark are complete! So are the driveways!
The lookahead schedule posted on the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website shows major efforts for the next three weeks include installation of:
In other words, no big concrete pours for a while.
For More Information
See the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority project web pages. For a history of the project, see these select posts on ReduceFlooding.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/30/25
2711 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering Review Released
2/8/2025 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has finally released the full text of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering Review and its supporting files. The report, which was originally due in 300 days took more than 1400 days. When asked why it took so long, a HCFCD representative replied, “Personnel turnover.”
The files transmitted to Commissioners Court on 2/6/25 include:
See links to all of them at the bottom of this post.
Altogether, the 175 megabytes of materials include hundreds of pages. I could not even post some files because they exceeded the size limit of my website or because they were engineering files that required specialized software to open.
I have uploaded what I can. However, I have not studied them all thoroughly yet. Based on a preliminary scan, here are some of the highlights.
Three Alternatives Evaluated
Neel-Schaffer, the engineering company that produced the report, considered three alternatives. Each improves stormwater carrying capacity of the ditch and relieves some of the pressure on Bens Branch. The two are connected near the Northpark Drive Fireworks Stand. The three alternatives include the following features:
Alternative #3 Recommended
For each alternative, Neel-Schaffer examined:
The engineers recommended Alternative 3 after comparing:
The table below summarizes their benefits.
Even though alternative #3 was the most expensive to construct, lower maintenance costs would offset the increase within 28 years.
Features Included in Recommendation
The recommended project alternative includes:
The bridges at Northpark Drive will also be rebuilt, but as part of the Northpark Expansion Project.
Impacts on Bens Branch
In each alternative, stormwater flow to Bens Branch was restricted by pipes. That forces more stormwater into the expanded Diversion Ditch.
The Flood Control District’s guidelines allow for the use of a minimum pipe diameter of 24-inches. That would take enough stormwater flow out of Bens Branch to improve it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.
Remember, the function of the Diversion Ditch is to take stormwater out of Bens Branch. Friendswood hoped to minimize flooding through the western half of Kingwood by using two channels instead of one to convey stormwater.
Detention Basin Also Recommended South of West Fork
Neel-Schaffer also evaluated the need for stormwater detention storage volume to mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed alternatives. They recommend one across the West Fork on high ground.
Funding Not Identified Yet
Funding does not currently exist for any construction. HCFCD would have to apply for grants. The Preliminary Engineering Report outlines several possible sources of funding. However, Stephanie Zertuche, Flood Control’s Project Manager, says that pursuit will likely happen as part of the next phase – construction engineering – when costs are locked down.
However, that assumes that the project even gets that far. $55 million to remove 34 structures from the 100-year flood plain will be a difficult sell based on the Benefit/Cost Analysis alone.
But there are other factors to consider. We shouldn’t forget that:
Social benefits go far beyond cost and are hard to quantify.
To Review the Original Docs…
Below are links to all the Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering Report documents.
For ease of future reference, I’ve also linked them on the Reports Page under the Harris County Flood Control District tab.
If you are an engineer in the Humble/Kingwood Area, please help. Send me your opinions through the contact page of this website.
Even if you don’t read the entire study, you may be interested in seeing where your home stands in relation to the new expanded floodplains under Atlas 14. Those inundation maps at the bottom of the list are very interesting.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/25
2720 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Flood Bond, Subdivision Drainage Shortfalls Prompt Harsh Words From Commissioners
2/6/2025 – Fireworks erupted in Harris County Commissioners Court today over the 2018 Flood Bond and Subdivision Drainage shortfalls. It was a rare display of bipartisan outrage.
All four commissioners and the county judge expressed concerns about budget shortfalls. The County Engineer, the Head of the Flood Control District, the County Budget Manager and the County Administrator all took turns in the crosshairs when it became clear that the County didn’t have enough money to deliver flood-mitigation projects promised long ago.
Budget Shortfall and Contributing Factors
Subdivision drainage projects used to be a subset of projects within the flood bond. However, Commissioners formally transferred them to the Office of the County Engineer in April 2021 (Item 21-1833 in the 4/27/21 Commissioners Court meeting).
That said, the cost of subdivision drainage projects alone increased from $451 million to $590 million since 2018. Comparable figures were not provided for flood-bond projects although the July 2024 Flood Bond Update alluded to 33 projects that have “uncertainty about whether current funding levels are sufficient to take the associated projects through construction.”
Reasons cited for the subdivision drainage project budget shortfall included 30-35% inflation in the construction sector, scope creep, additional projects, and adoption of higher Atlas-14 rainfall standards after passage of the flood bond. Atlas 14 requires projects to handle larger rainfall events than the previous standards.
Reasons cited for the bond-project funding uncertainty included “inflationary pressures and the rising cost of property acquisition, as well as potential schedule impacts due to inclement weather, supply chain pressures, and regulatory changes.”
“An Abysmal Failure” and Loss of Trust
During the contentious 24-minute discussion, the County Judge said that the county needs another flood bond.
Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis said that he would campaign against it. Ellis also accused the County Engineer of ignoring the county’s equity plan.
Ellis also said, “It would be very challenging to go to voters in Precinct One [and ask them] to ever trust this county with money again … even to trust me. … This is an abomination.”
We haven’t heard the last of this. Ellis addressing the county engineer said, “So, you would have a $150 million hole before you discovered there was a problem. I’m just curious about all of the bureaucracy we put in place. I’m a person who voted to have a county administrator, our deputy county administrators … paying the best money, if not in the state, in the country for these folks.”
Ellis continued, “I’m curious to know, when did the county manager know about it? When did the deputy county administrator know about it, and when did the Budget Office know about it? When did you all discover it? Is it tracked by anybody?”
“Major Crisis” with No Sense of Urgency
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, said, “This is a major crisis. I sense no urgency from flood control. I sense no urgency from the county engineer’s office. And I don’t sense any urgency from the county administrator.”
Ramsey also said, “We need to go back and take a look at it, but there needs to be an adult in room to be sure that we get honest answers back.”
“Utter Dismay. Frustration. Shock.”
Normally restrained Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones said, “I share my colleague’s complete and utter dismay. Frustration. Shock.” She emphasized that the county needed to find solutions for both the subdivision drainage projects and the flood bond.
“This is not OK,” she said. “And we need to get it done with a sense of urgency.” Then in a thinly veiled threat, she added, “If we’re not being clear, I don’t want to go back to the policy about wages. But when we say something, we mean it.” Commissioners recently voted department heads large pay increases.
Before finishing, Briones emphasized that Flood Bond Projects, not just subdivision drainage projects needed to be completed also.
However, no one could say exactly where all the projects stood. The Flood Control District’s Active Projects page stopped working long ago. The last “Completed Projects” Report on the District’s website is dated 12/14/2020. And the frequency of flood-bond updates has declined from monthly to annually.
Motion to Revisit Issue on March 27 Unanimously Approved
In the end, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion to direct the Office of Management and Budget “to work with flood control, county engineering, and any relevant departments to return to court on March 27 with proposed options and recommendations using any and all county resources for closing the shortfall on the Harris County Engineering Department Subdivision Drainage Program and ensuring the implementation of the flood bond framework adopted by Commissioners Court.”
Commissioner Ramsey offered a friendly amendment. “The financial analysis should include, at a minimum, the entire program showing all projects completed. Projects under construction with any potential changes in contract. Active projects awaiting funding. Remaining available funds for all projects now that the project budgets have been increased.”
The motion with the amendment carried unanimously.
Video of Meeting
You can view the entire discussion and vote on the motion at this link. Click on Departments (Part 2 of 3). Then scroll forward to 3:24:01. You’re looking for item 217.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/6/2025
2718 Days since Hurricane Harvey