Could tunnels be a viable solution to flooding in Houston (Dallas: houses, neighborhood)

[elnina]

For Harris County Flood Control District and other entities around the city working to mitigate flooding, especially since Hurricane Harvey, the solution may be 150 feet underground tunnels directing water underground and pushing it to the Houston Ship Channel.
(Austin and San Antonio as cities currently using underground tunnels for flood mitigation. Dallas is working on it right now.)

As of now, the tunnels are only being studied for potential use and have not been approved for construction.

https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/spr...n-14366255.php

[mikeyyc]

The challenge with Houston v. all those other cities is that we're on the coast. If you dig 150 feet down you're 130 feet below sea level. So the minute you open to discharge your tunnel, it will flood with sea water. Everywhere else, it's just moving surface water off the surface to drain somewhere else.

[Snapper_head]

It’s an interesting idea. A few notes:

1) It would be very expensive - billions of dollars.

2) It would only solve some of the problem.

3) It would only be a band-aid on the symptoms rather than a cure for the underlying problems: overdevelopment, too much hardscape, building too close to creeks, poor oversight, poor planning, sprawl, and poor resilience for climate change.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by Snapper_head

It’s an interesting idea. A few notes:

1) It would be very expensive - billions of dollars.

2) It would only solve some of the problem.

3) It would only be a band-aid on the symptoms rather than a cure for the underlying problems: overdevelopment, too much hardscape, building too close to creeks, poor oversight, poor planning, sprawl, and poor resilience for climate change.

So, how would you have handled the million people that moved to the area and wanted single family homes to live in?

Tunnels might work, but there are some issues, ranging from subsurface rights to avoiding abandoned oil wells, fault lines, soil issues, etc.

[crone]

Originally Posted by WRM20

So, how would you have handled the million people that moved to the area and wanted single family homes to live in?

Tunnels might work, but there are some issues, ranging from subsurface rights to avoiding abandoned oil wells, fault lines, soil issues, etc.

Just more engineering and contracting firms thinking up was to 'save' citizens while enriching themselves.

Putting houses on pier and beam, even 18-24" would have alleviate water displacement. But slab on grade is much cheaper.

IIRC, even when storm drainage from an outfall ditch enters a creek, it creates a dam that slows down the water already in the creek.

Houston and Harris county have allowed developers and builders to do some pretty stupid things to save cost.

It is time for citizens already here to have as many rights as builders.

[snackdog]

The tunnels downtown fill with water during the floods.

[HookTheBrotherUp]

As with rail, some will say it is too expensive. That is true, but it is never going to be cheaper either. I wished Houston got on the rail bandwagon years ago, maybe we'd have a viable Metro to take you to all parts of the region as is done in most major cities in Europe, or the Northeastern US. It would have cost a whole lot less if they did this, say, in the 70's.

Not too many people using the "it floods" argument. If Amsterdam can do it, and other cities by the coast, so can Houston.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp

As with rail, some will say it is too expensive. That is true, but it is never going to be cheaper either. I wished Houston got on the rail bandwagon years ago, maybe we'd have a viable Metro to take you to all parts of the region as is done in most major cities in Europe, or the Northeastern US. It would have cost a whole lot less if they did this, say, in the 70's.

Not too many people using the "it floods" argument. If Amsterdam can do it, and other cities by the coast, so can Houston.

Amen. Being cheap again instead of comprehensively coming up with the best solution and finding a way to fund and implement it. Just like always. Flood prevention here should be an "all of the above" strategy.

[crone]

Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp

As with rail, some will say it is too expensive. That is true, but it is never going to be cheaper either. I wished Houston got on the rail bandwagon years ago, maybe we'd have a viable Metro to take you to all parts of the region as is done in most major cities in Europe, or the Northeastern US. It would have cost a whole lot less if they did this, say, in the 70's.

Not too many people using the "it floods" argument. If Amsterdam can do it, and other cities by the coast, so can Houston.

You are going back in time to when Brown and Root stilled owned the city fathers.

It was possible. I lived on Driscoll and could walk to 3 different bus routes to get downtown. But, the city fathers needed a way for the help to get to work.

[hendersj31]

Well we can't really undo all the things in item 3. Now, we can stop doing these things but the damage is done.

Originally Posted by Snapper_head

It’s an interesting idea. A few notes:

1) It would be very expensive - billions of dollars.

2) It would only solve some of the problem.

3) It would only be a band-aid on the symptoms rather than a cure for the underlying problems: overdevelopment, too much hardscape, building too close to creeks, poor oversight, poor planning, sprawl, and poor resilience for climate change.