Waller Creek Flood Tunnel & Trail Update Thread

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Morons. How do they get away with this BS? The view is already obstructed! There is no protected view! They could just add some deck on top and it would improve the so-called protected view.

Stupid SOBs wasting our money because they don't give a shit. It's not their money, why should they care?

That was a tasty rant and I agree wholeheartedly. I'll never understand the tendency for most humans to unquestioningly adhere to rules that don't make any sense. Maybe it's driven by a desire not to face the kind of consequences I've experienced in my many run-ins with rules I didn't like. People, and systems, don't like disruption.

[bearinaustin]

Anyone who is not following Austin Watershed on facebook should get on that!

https://www.facebook.com/AustinWatershed?fref=ts

They have posted some crazy videos of the tunnel inlet activity the past few days.

Video:
https://www.facebook.com/AustinWater...8756409150752/

An update they posted on a comment for the video:

Construction is nearly complete on the flood conveyance components of the project. Construction of the pond at the main inlet at Waterloo Park is complete and screens are in place to filter out trash and debris before flows enter the tunnel. Crews are working on the dam in Waterloo Park which will divert floodwaters into the tunnel and limit the amount of water that continues down Waller Creek.

So it's almost active.. so close!

[priller]

https://www.wallercreek.org/archive/...ial-day-flood/

The reason why Waller Creek didn't flood -- the tunnel was partially working. The inlet tunnel at Waterloo park is done but the dam to divert water into the tunnel is not complete. Nevertheless, a lot of water did get diverted into the tunnel. So the creek was really high but didn't flood.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by priller

https://www.wallercreek.org/archive/...ial-day-flood/

The reason why Waller Creek didn't flood -- the tunnel was partially working. The inlet tunnel at Waterloo park is done but the dam to divert water into the tunnel is not complete. Nevertheless, a lot of water did get diverted into the tunnel. So the creek was really high but didn't flood.

Didn't flood? I guess that depends on who you ask. Easy Tiger may disagree.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Didn't flood? I guess that depends on who you ask. Easy Tiger may disagree.

Actually that isn't too bad compared to what it could have been. I've seen it alot higher than that. There wouldn't be anyone standing on that bridge because usually that bridge would be under water.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Didn't flood? I guess that depends on who you ask. Easy Tiger may disagree.

Actually that's not bad. It did not reach street level or go out of it's banks so much downtown. UT had problems for sure.
It made snese that something helped!

[priller]

Actually went to Easy Tiger later that evening (wife needed a chocolate croissant!). They said they did have to shut down the restaurant portion that day, but mainly for safety reasons. It wasn't that much water in the building.

[drummer]

I think we can agree that this issue is ridiculous regardless of ones political views. The bottom line is that the city government ought to look into how to not spend more funds, yet they insist on spending far more than necessary. I agree with the fact that a deck would be aesthetically more pleasing and actually add to the public use of the space, that would otherwise be "public land" that essentially was closed to the public. A deck on top (i.e., being flexible...yeah, I know...far chance of any government agency working from that angle), would be cheaper than reconstructing entirely. That's not even one of the ideal views of the capitol building - when I think of views worth protecting, I think more of the ones that travel toward the south and southwest. I'm just irritated at the blatant disregard for public funds and the strict adherence to a silly law (in this particular instance, that is) anyway. Overall I like the CVC's, but there has to be an exception in this case.

[the Genral]

In today's AAS, a spokeswoman, Stephanie Lott, with the city's Watershed Protection Dept. said they were doing a "full look" at what happened with the Waller Creek tunnel during the last storm.
I think their main concern was that water flowed over the dam on the intake side which was not supposed to happen, and the area around 12th Street had around six inches of water. A letter of concern was sent to the engineering firm from a city staff person last June expressing concerns about how the tunnel is performing now AND how its going to perform when completed in early 2017 when the 8th St. intake is finished. The main intake structure is slated to be done early next year. The engineering's reply was basically, its not finished yet and erosion control debris helped clog the unfinished intake structure.
Fair enough, but...the intake pond dam was within a foot of being breached back in June with less rain, and that's higher than designed. That was considered a 20 to 30 year flood, the design for a hundred year flood would supposedly keep the water more than one foot from the top of the dam which overflowed last week.
Sooooo....there seems to be some legitimate concerns from the WPD, about how well this tunnel will perform, no doubt it will improve the flooding situation, but will it perform as advertised?. We'd probably have more answers if the intake structure didn't have to be rebuilt. The tunnel would have gotten a true test this year for sure. If I was a developer thinking about sinking money along the creek, I might have to just delay that thought until the tunnel proves itself, but who knows when we'll get another major rain event to truly test the finished product. I see more unforeseen delays ahead for the true Waller Creek vision.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by the Genral

In today's AAS, a spokeswoman, Stephanie Lott, with the city's Watershed Protection Dept. said they were doing a "full look" at what happened with the Waller Creek tunnel during the last storm.
I think their main concern was that water flowed over the dam on the intake side which was not supposed to happen, and the area around 12th Street had around six inches of water. A letter of concern was sent to the engineering firm from a city staff person last June expressing concerns about how the tunnel is performing now AND how its going to perform when completed in early 2017 when the 8th St. intake is finished. The main intake structure is slated to be done early next year. The engineering's reply was basically, its not finished yet and erosion control debris helped clog the unfinished intake structure.
Fair enough, but...the intake pond dam was within a foot of being breached back in June with less rain, and that's higher than designed. That was considered a 20 to 30 year flood, the design for a hundred year flood would supposedly keep the water less than one foot from the top of the dam which overflowed last week.
Sooooo....there seems to be some legitimate concerns from the WPD, about how well this tunnel will perform, no doubt it will improve the flooding situation, but will it perform as advertised. We'd probably have more answers if the intake structure didn't have to be rebuilt. The tunnel would have gotten a true test this year for sure. If I was a developer thinking about sinking money along the creek, I might have to just delay that thought until the tunnel proves itself, but who knows when we'll get another major rain event to truly test the finished product. I see more unforeseen delays ahead for the true Waller Creek vision.

We are in the flash flood capital of the world. I hope they took that into consideration. Hopefully, the engineer is right, but this is unsettling.

[drummer]

...time for tunnel #2?

[_Matt]

Blocking the intake grates seems like it would definitely reduce the effectiveness. We can speculate about it and create drama, but unless you're the engineer with the actual numbers, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Syndic]

I asked the Watershed Protection Department for an update on the state of the Waller Creek Tunnel project and they game through.

Check out these pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/828351...57656784869385

Oops, never mind, these are super old! I've been sold a fake bill of goods!

[ahealy]

ugh, and Austin can't build a subway .......because

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by ahealy

ugh, and Austin can't build a subway .......because

Lack of density to warrant the expense. Ridership would likely be too low.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ahealy

ugh, and Austin can't build a subway .......because

They're massively expensive and it would bankrupt us for decades?


So the Waller creek flood tunnel is $163M for ~ 1 mile in length. Any viable subway system would need to be, what, at least 5-6 miles.


That's just a tunnel, not including track, electrification, stations (a _biggy_), emergency access and egress, ventilation (water doesn't need to breath), and vehicles. Oh, and some sort of vehicle storage and maintenance facility presumably above ground.

And the construction of _just_ the tunnel started in 2011. So you figure at least inflation out to 2025 or so (planning + voter approval + construction).



At least initially, any Austin transit system will be mostly above ground, with potentially underground sections in the very limited areas it's necessary or makes sense. Remember, the 2014 plan was (or at least considered, it's been long enough that I can't quite recall) an underground section through downtown up to about 12th street or so.

[The ATX]

As soon as the tunnel is finished Waterloo Park will get a $15 million dollar makeover.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...ef=cbTopWidget

[priller]

Interesting. My friends in our building (Sabine at 5th) were talking about how the tunnel worked like a champ during the recent flood. The creek rose some but not nearly as much as it has in the past during similar heavy rain. I'm sure the tunnel has some issues but overall it's doing its job.

[nixcity]

But the CACDC numbers (ridership and cost) are completely debunked BS.

They literally copied the ridership number from the 2000 light rail plan, a system 3 times the length.

Their plan was for 14.7 miles of track compared to 2000's 14.6. Not sure where you get 3 times.
Their ridership model was not based on STOPS but rather a Transportation Research Board model drawing. Regardless of whether or not it was even within 10,000 it would be a big success. Red line has yet to achieve 3,000 lousy boarding. Case in point, while at Blackstar (Crestview Station), not a sole was waiting for the trains. The 2 that passed while we were there were maybe 1/10 full while during the same time 27 people boarded the bus there (where the first line should be, not wasted on yet another commuter line). It would be easy to then envision a spur going right over to Burnet and heading all the way to its end where it turns into Duval.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Their plan was for 14.7 miles of track compared to 2000's 14.6. Not sure where you get 3 times.
Their ridership model was not based on STOPS but rather a Transportation Research Board model drawing. Regardless of whether or not it was even within 10,000 it would be a big success. Red line has yet to achieve 3,000 lousy boarding. Case in point, while at Blackstar (Crestview Station), not a sole was waiting for the trains. The 2 that passed while we were there were maybe 1/10 full while during the same time 27 people boarded the bus there (where the first line should be, not wasted on yet another commuter line). It would be easy to then envision a spur going right over to Burnet and heading all the way to its end where it turns into Duval.

We could accomplish the same ridership with shorter tracks, though, in the way that I describe in more detail in the transportation thread. I.E. it'd be cheaper because it'd be shorter. If we can accomplish the same thing (because it'd hit all the major nodes of employment and residential density as the line you're wanting) for cheaper, then why wouldn't we?