[rad707]

Interesting way of paying it off; a huge boon for Downtown's East Side:

Austin and Travis County ready to unite on Waller Creek tunnel
Cost-sharing deal will revive dormant tunnel plans.

By Kate Alexander

Friday, February 23, 2007

The Waller Creek tunnel, stymied for almost a decade by rising costs, is back on track now that Travis County appears ready to help Austin pay for the $124 million flood control project.

Travis County commissioners gave the city's latest financing proposal a friendly reception at a nonvoting session Thursday, which left Austin City Council Members Sheryl Cole and Betty Dunkerley optimistic that a partnership will be forged in the coming weeks.

Commissioner Gerald Daugherty said it was a no-brainer for the county to participate.

"It is such a good deal, you go: 'Are you serious?' " Daugherty quipped. "It is a pretty sweet project for us."

To win the county's participation, Austin made the commissioners a risk-free offer.

The two entities would create a taxing district along the downtown Waller Creek corridor to pay for the tunnel, which is expected to foster economic growth in the area.

Property owners within the district will pay the same tax rate as everyone else in the city. But once the Waller Creek Tax Increment Finance district is created, much of the new property tax revenue from that area will be dedicated to paying off the debt used to build and operate the tunnel.

Over 20 years, Austin will put all of the new property tax revenue from the district toward the project, and Travis County will contribute half of its take from the area. The other half of the county tax money, estimated to be almost $61 million over the duration, will go to its general operating fund. That money pays for the criminal justice system, roads and other basic functions.

If construction costs rise or the expected development does not happen, Austin will cover the gap. The city will pay for the last 10 years of the 30-year debt alone.

"This project is important enough for us to get done that we're willing to take that risk," said John Stephens, the city's chief financial officer.

Austin voters approved $25 million in bonds to build the tunnel in 1998, but that amount proved far too small. Since that time, the project design and its financing have been repeatedly reconfigured to find a solution.

It appears the stars have now aligned.

As downtown undergoes a renaissance, the blighted Waller Creek corridor will be ripe for development. That development can then pay for the tunnel to control the flooding.

Without the tunnel, more than 40 buildings and countless people would be threatened in the event of a 100-year flood, which has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year. In January, emergency workers had to rescue a man trapped in the rushing waters of Waller Creek. He had jumped in to save a woman who was swept away.

With the tunnel, the water level could be controlled to ensure a clean, constant flow and provide an amenity similar to San Antonio's River Walk, city officials say. The plan does not include money for trails or other infrastructure along the creek.

The changed composition of the commissioners court also opened the door for the deal. Karen Sonleitner, the county's most vocal tunnel skeptic, lost her re-election bid. Her successor, Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt, endorsed the project and the partnership.

"This seems to be the best and frankly only" option, Eckhardt said.

[M1EK]

The idea that we can make a Riverwalk out of this thing depends on us better managing the often agressive homeless population currently residing in and around the creek. I don't know how San Antonio does/did it, but I've never been hassled in ten times on the Riverwalk; but it's impossible to go very far in Waller Creek without a range of interactions ranging from merely smelling to actually having to fend off panhandlers.

[rad707]

South Congress used to have hookers and/or dealers walking the street. Change on the creek is inevitable, although I think turning it into a riverwalk is slightly agressive. better to make it a trail used for exercise (both day and night) and keep the retail on the street - this has always been my problem with the riverwalk. get above it, on the street, and things are dead.

[JAM]

better to make it a trail used for exercise (both day and night) and keep the retail on the street - this has always been my problem with the riverwalk. get above it, on the street, and things are dead.

good point. I'll bet that is because access is so limited. IMO, if left as exercise trail only, it will still retain the current problems. Integrating it with the street level activity would be the best of both worlds.

[KevinFromTexas]

Here's an update. Click on the link below to view pictures of the area including a map and even a conceptual plan.

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/24/24waller.html

Has Waller Creek Tunnel's time come?
Flood control project could move forward with city and county cost-sharing plan.

By Kate Alexander
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Saturday, March 24, 2007

The Waller Creek tunnel has been touted as a panacea for many of downtown Austin's development ills.

The project is expected to control flooding, improve water quality, bridge east and west, and turn a ditch into a gurgling stream for all to enjoy, Austin officials say. The clock on fulfilling all of those promises could start on Tuesday when the Travis County commissioners are scheduled to vote on a cost-sharing agreement.

Commissioners have indicated that they support the proposal, as have City Council members.

"The vision is big," said City Council Member Sheryl Cole, who has worked to revive the long-stalled project since joining the council last year.

But the vision is expensive, too. The plan to pay for the $124 million tunnel is based upon $3.7 billion worth of new development rising near the creek by 2027, up from the current property value of $170 million. The hefty price tag is one of the reasons the project has been stalled until a recent proposal by the city.

As part of a deal with Travis County, Austin assumes all the financial risk if that development does not materialize or costs rise even higher, as they have substantially since voters approved $25 million worth of bonds to build the tunnel in 1998.

Cole said it is a risk worth taking because the conditions are right — a booming economy, the downtown renaissance and the focus on high-value, dense development — and the potential benefits are great. She said the long-term property value estimate is reasonable and has been thoroughly examined by outside consultants.

Waller Creek has long been a bane for downtown boosters. They say it is ugly and unsafe and has stymied growth in the southeast portion of downtown while the rest of the central area has flourished.

The tunnel idea was hatched more than a decade ago as a way to control flooding along the creek, where as recently as January a woman was washed away in a torrent and is presumed dead.

The project aims to redirect floodwater during storms so that it does not soak the downtown land.

During storms, a wide inlet in Waterloo Park would catch floodwater and send it down a 70-foot vertical drop. The water would then flow through a subway-sized tunnel that runs to Town Lake beneath Sabine Street. It would take about six years to complete the design and construction of the project.

The tunnel would keep the water in the creek bed at a steady level below five feet and safely within the banks. Today, the water can rise more than 15 feet in some places. About 40 buildings, including the Austin Police Department, and 12 roads are susceptible to flooding during severe storms.

When the weather is dry, Town Lake water would be circulated up the tunnel and down the creek to produce a clean and constant stream.

"When we know the flooding is not a threat, the dollars are going to flow down there," said Perry Lorenz, a longtime tunnel advocate.

Lorenz and his business partner Robert Knight own three corners at Red River and Cesar Chavez streets, portions of which are in the flood plain and are prime locations for redevelopment.

Knight said all the properties in the flood plain are readily developable with or without the tunnel. But development would be easier and the final product would be enhanced by a clear flowing stream and pedestrian features.

Stubb's Bar-B-Q, which is along the creek, is planning a major expansion that would be simplified because the tunnel project would remove the property from the flood plain, said Jeff Waughtal, managing partner of Stubb's.

Waughtal said that the project is an "obvious and intelligent" endeavor because it would enhance what is already there and make the area more accessible.

Property owners along East Sixth Street are "jumping for joy" about the potential redevelopment, said Josh Allen, executive director of the Pecan Street Owners Association.

"You have the ability to make Austin an even more dynamic downtown than it already is and accentuate Austin's historic gem, which is East Sixth Street," Allen said.

The plan has inspired colorful dreams of a pedestrian-friendly corridor featuring a hip version of San Antonio's River Walk that links three city parks. Improvements also are planned in Waterloo Park and at Town Lake, where an amphitheater and floating stage would add a new music venue to the downtown scene.

"We haven't seen an amenity of this magnitude for our entire city for a long, long time," Cole said. "A downtown Austin waterway will put us on the map as a vibrant, urban city for generations to come."

The existing Waller Creek trail and other public land would ensure access to the waterway, but money for building the walkway is not part of the current financing plan nor is there a concrete plan to pay for it with private money.

But Lorenz said the lack of public money will not be an obstacle.

"You create that water amenity and the private sector is going to jump all over that," Lorenz said.

Austin has asked Travis County to create a joint tax increment financing district; much of the property tax revenue from that district would be dedicated to paying off the tunnel project's debt over 20 years.

If approved, the district would encompass the properties on either side of the creek between 12th Street and Town Lake as well as the Rainey Street area, where intense redevelopment is already under way.

Under the proposal, Travis County would put in half of its take within the district to the debt for 20 years; Austin would dedicate all of its tax revenue for the same period and still be responsible for some debt at the end of the term.

Property owners would pay the same amount of property tax to the city and county as they would without the financing district. But much of the money would go to the debt rather than the government's operating fund.

Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe said Austin's proposal means that the county will get the benefit of the economic development without taking any of the risk.

"We can deal with that," Biscoe said.

Laura Morrison, president of the Austin Neighborhoods Council, does not believe the financing plan is the best way to pay for the project. The landowners along the creek should bear more of the cost "since they are going to enjoy such a huge increase in value," Morrison said.

Without the tunnel, supporters say the area will never reach its development potential, so dedicating the property tax that comes from that development is justified.

"You are bringing additional tax base that you could not do in any other way," Allen said. "As all boats rise together, then everyone pays their fair share."

[TDoss]

great post Kevin. Thanks for the update

[JAM]

Laura Morrison, president of the Austin Neighborhoods Council, does not believe the financing plan is the best way to pay for the project. The landowners along the creek should bear more of the cost "since they are going to enjoy such a huge increase in value," Morrison said.

This argument could be made about any public investment, parks, roads, libraries, etc. It doesn't seem like strong point. The investment in this project is going to serve a lot of people, yes, it will directly impact the business owners along this property, but it other nearby businesses will enjoy the increased foot traffic as well. East Austin will also become more recognized, because people will start to venture down this way. The increased sales tax would help pay for this already. Of course I have not run financials, but this increase should offset some costs. If anything, maybe an extra cent can be applied to sales tax in this area. That way people who are enjoying it can help pay for it.

[MichaelB]

Lots of good thoughts here. I have often wondered if it should really be like SA. I would want something where the street level connects more to the creek level. I do think it should be a part of the trail/hike/bike system. Perhaps one side could be dedicated to that.? Not sure how all that would play together. And from that point of view..... I think that while buisnesses along there will benefit.... it, perhaps should be viewed as a public works project. I tend to agree, at least at this point, with what JAM says on this...

[Jdawgboy]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for parks and hike and bike trails but Austin already has tones of parks with hike and bike trails, what with Town lake, even Shoal Creek on the west side of downtown. I think it would be a good thing to have something alittle different with Waller Creek, I don't want to copy the river walk in SA either but something that is uniquely Austin. I love that amphitheater Idea that would be great.

[MichaelB]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for parks and hike and bike trails but Austin already has tones of parks with hike and bike trails, what with Town lake, even Shoal Creek on the west side of downtown. I think it would be a good thing to have something alittle different with Waller Creek, I don't want to copy the river walk in SA either but something that is uniquely Austin. I love that amphitheater Idea that would be great.

Yup..... got cha..... don't disagree.....

[rad707]

Waller Creek tunnel gets first go-ahead
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The Travis County Commissioners voted today to help the City of Austin pay for the $124 million Waller Creek tunnel, a flood control project on the east end of downtown.

The tunnel, which has been delayed for almost a decade because of rising costs, is expected to open a large swath of downtown to redevelopment.

As part of a deal with Travis County, Austin assumes all the financial risk if development to support the venture does not materialize or costs rise even higher, as they have substantially since voters approved $25 million worth of bonds to build the tunnel in 1998.

The city still has to give final approval to the plan, but council members have expressed support.

The plan has inspired colorful dreams of a pedestrian-friendly corridor featuring a hip version of San Antonio's River Walk that links three city parks. Improvements also are planned in Waterloo Park and at Town Lake, where an amphitheater and floating stage would add a new music venue to the downtown scene.

Today's vote helps create a joint tax increment financing district; much of the property tax revenue from that district would be dedicated to paying off the tunnel project's debt over 20 years.

The district will encompass the properties on either side of the creek between 12th Street and Town Lake as well as the Rainey Street area, where intense redevelopment is already under way.

[JAM]

Some Waller Info...

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/waller_fs.htm

Anyone know exactly what the definition of a "joint tax increment financing district" is? Sounds like some sort of PoliticoSpeak

Some cool images from an old Austin Chron article:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek.jpeg


http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek2.jpeg


http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek5.jpeg




http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek.html

[KevinFromTexas]

I heard that the area of land that would be opened to redevelopment is 27 acres. That's a lot of land considering a single block can be between 1 and 2 acres.

[JAM]

I heard that the area of land that would be opened to redevelopment is 27 acres. That's a lot of land considering a single block can be between 1 and 2 acres.

The above Chron link says: "The tunnel would shrink Lower Waller's 100-year floodplain, which currently includes property up to four blocks away, down to the current banks of the creek itself. It would not, however, eliminate all flooding within Waller Creek, as the civil engineers in San Antonio have made possible on the Riverwalk; during big storms, as much as 10 feet of water will end up in the narrowest reaches of Lower Waller, such as between Sixth and Fourth streets."

[GoldenBoot]

...Anyone know exactly what the definition of a "joint tax increment financing district" is? Sounds like some sort of PoliticoSpeak...

No, actually it's a pretty cool thing...Tax increment financing (TIF) funds are allocated to a designated project area from a rise in the tax revenue generated by the increased value of the properties located within the project area. The TIF revenue provides a cash flow to fund public improvements on a year-by-year basis, and/or amortize bonds which have been issued to capitalize development programs within the renewal area. Priority has been given to utilize income to develop projects on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.

In other words, a TIF is a way for governments (usually municipal authorities) to help finance new capital projects by taking advantage of expected property tax returns. A city, for example, may designate as a TIF district a plot of land that is planned to be redeveloped. Then the city can borrow against expected increased tax revenues to build infrastructure such as sewers and transportation services.



Some cool images from an old Austin Chron article:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek.jpeg


http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek2.jpeg


http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue01/pols.wallercreek5.jpeg


Those look like the images which were made public back in 1997-1998 when the idea of a Waller Creek tunnel was first floated. I'm not sure if anyone has any "current" renderings other than the City's amphletheatre idea.

[GoldenBoot]

Travis County agrees to Waller Creek tunnel project


By Kimberly Reeves
IN FACT DAILY
March 28, 2007


Travis County Commissioners – with nothing to lose and little on the line in terms of risk – unanimously agreed to participate in the Waller Creek Tunnel project on Tuesday.

The $124 million project, which will be underwritten by bonds and a tax-increment finance district, will take one million square feet of land out of the flood plain on the eastern edge of downtown and create a new downtown amenity. Council Member Sheryl Cole, who has championed the project since she took office last summer, called it “a new living room for downtown Austin,” one that would create a missing link in the 21-mile trail system and spur new downtown development.

Commissioners could find little to complain about in the project. Commissioner Margaret Gomez praised the flood control aspects of the project. County Judge Sam Biscoe spoke of the additions to the tax roll. And Commissioner Gerald Daugherty agreed the county faced little, if any, risk in the deal the way it was structured.

“I wish people would bring us these kind of deals all day long,” Daugherty said. “Because I do think this will be an economic boom.”

Commissioners approved the project unanimously. After the vote, Cole said the interlocal agreement between city and county should take about six weeks. The Council is expected to give final approval next week. Then the city will have to figure out whether to bid the project or go with existing engineers. The city could break ground on the tunnel project as soon as this summer.

“I’m very excited. This is a great day for Austin, to bring a downtown waterway for the entire city to enjoy. We hope that it will be a public amenity for generations to come,” Cole said. “Downtown has been called the living room of Austin and sometimes I call it the den, because it is where we come to play. And even if you don’t live or work downtown, you definitely come downtown to play.”

Over the life of the 20-year life of the deal, Travis County will hand over $71 million in incremental tax increases as land along the creek is developed. But, as Biscoe pointed out, that’s $71 million in taxes the county wouldn’t be seeing without the tunnel project. The county also gets to keep another $71 million in taxable revenue, since the county has committed only half of any incremental tax increases over the life of the deal.

And, according to the deal, the county is only on the hook for the taxes it collects. If the value of the property along the creek is less than expected, the county pays less. Leroy Nellis of Travis County’s Planning and Budget Office, who reviewed the numbers, said he was satisfied that the county was properly protected in the city-county deal.

Commissioners did have questions. Gomez wanted to make sure the senior citizens in the affordable housing next door to the Four Seasons would not be displaced in the name of development. Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt wanted a clear picture of what the tax dollars would, and would not, fund. While the county will pick up part of the tunnel price, it will be city and parkland dedication fees that will spruce up the parks.

And Commissioner Ron Davis alluded to the fact that not everyone was on board with the project. Jeff Jack, who served in former Council Member Beverly Griffith’s office, was on hand at Tuesday’s meeting and pointed out the city could easily resolve the issue on far less money, simply by buying up land along Waller Creek, just as the city did when it went to address the mid-80s flooding that occurred on Shoal Creek.

Austin already has one of the most significant water amenities in the state – Town Lake – one that could easily bear more fruit for the city. He suggested that it would be far wiser to create a public improvement district – a district that charged fees to local landowners – in order to fund improvements. In that case, the people who would benefit the most from the project would be the ones to pay for the improvements, and the additional tax revenues could be used, rightfully, for other city improvements.

The city’s Chief Financial Officer, John Stephens, agreed the city had looked at the Waller Creek project as a PID. It might have worked at a cost of five or 10 cents valuation. But at a cost of 60 cents per hundred dollars value, on top of downtown’s existing public improvement district, it’s unlikely that the city could get 51 percent of the landowners along the creek to agree to such a fee. Biscoe also argued that Waller Creek would exist as a public, as well as private, amenity for downtown residents, one that would yield tax dollars for the city.

[southsideatx04]

Should have done it a long time ago, would have saved more money. Its still going to be pretty awesome that Austin will have yet another tourist destination.

[Jdawgboy]

This is going to be pretty exciting, can't wait to see construction started.:cheers:

[rad707]

Sweetness:

http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail.html

From the Chronicle blog:

Whitewater Rafting Though Downtown – Now There's a Parking Solution



How awesome is that?

We might have written the Waller Creek Whitewater Trail Web site off as a joke if there wasn't so much information and earnestness therein. Deliverance comparisons be damned, the site creators write, "The Waller Creek Whitewater Trail would become another of Austin’s showcase attractions. … It is technically achievable and economically practical. It would make use of the forty feet of drop along the channel to produce Class II Whitewater. It leverages the Waller Creek Tunnel Projects’ plan to pump water from Town Lake up to Waterloo Park - to flow back downstream."

Not to mention, it would make Sheryl Cole's goal of east-west interconnectedness a reality. A brutally fast and wet reality.

While you're there, check out the kinda-awesome Photoshop renderings of this would-be urban whitewater trail. Also, there's a heartfelt (if slightly painful) music video for your enjoyment.

At first I was ready to snark this off, but the more I think about it, the better it sounds. (In a kinda Napoleon Dynamite way, that is: "Downtown's cool, but you know what would make it better? Whitewater rafting!")

[JAM]

Does anyone know what 127M will buy us? Is it only a tunnel? what kind of tunnel are we talking about? Will this be an open channel, will underground drainage lines? Will it include sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, or does that come later? To rephrase, exactly what is the definition of a tunnel in relationship to this project?

[southsideatx04]

Sweetness:

http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail.html

From the Chronicle blog:

Whitewater Rafting Though Downtown – Now There's a Parking Solution



How awesome is that?

We might have written the Waller Creek Whitewater Trail Web site off as a joke if there wasn't so much information and earnestness therein. Deliverance comparisons be damned, the site creators write, "The Waller Creek Whitewater Trail would become another of Austin’s showcase attractions. … It is technically achievable and economically practical. It would make use of the forty feet of drop along the channel to produce Class II Whitewater. It leverages the Waller Creek Tunnel Projects’ plan to pump water from Town Lake up to Waterloo Park - to flow back downstream."

Not to mention, it would make Sheryl Cole's goal of east-west interconnectedness a reality. A brutally fast and wet reality.

While you're there, check out the kinda-awesome Photoshop renderings of this would-be urban whitewater trail. Also, there's a heartfelt (if slightly painful) music video for your enjoyment.

At first I was ready to snark this off, but the more I think about it, the better it sounds. (In a kinda Napoleon Dynamite way, that is: "Downtown's cool, but you know what would make it better? Whitewater rafting!")

Maybe instead of whitewater we make it a public transportation route like Venice.

[M1EK]

Does anyone know what 127M will buy us? Is it only a tunnel? what kind of tunnel are we talking about? Will this be an open channel, will underground drainage lines? Will it include sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, or does that come later? To rephrase, exactly what is the definition of a tunnel in relationship to this project?

The 127M is only tunnel infrastructure (and pumps to make it work). No additional sidewalks/bridges. Tunnel will run under a nearby street (Red River, if I remember correctly).

[JAM]

The 127M is only tunnel infrastructure (and pumps to make it work). No additional sidewalks/bridges. Tunnel will run under a nearby street (Red River, if I remember correctly).

Now I can see why an argument could be made that the property owners should pay for this. The ones that were directly impacted by the flooding zone. They probably bought cheap land because it was in a flood plain, now the flood plain will be removed and they can expand further, or build infrastructure and get insured. That's not to say that I agree with it, but I can see the thought process.

A counter argument could be made the city should provide basic items, such as fire, police and flood protection.

[Saddle Man]

By that rational, any new road, sewer line, bike trail, or whatever public project, should be paid for by only those who have property that are directly on and affected by the improvement.

[KevinFromTexas]

I love your avatar, Jam. :tup:

I think the city and county governments, as well as the bordering businesses should pay for it. Everyone will enjoy it and benefit from it, so it makes sense that everyone should pay for it.

[JAM]

By that rational, any new road, sewer line, bike trail, or whatever public project, should be paid for by only those who have property that are directly on and affected by the improvement.

see post #7 above...

[JAM]

I love your avatar, Jam. :tup:

I think the city and county governments, as well as the bordering businesses should pay for it. Everyone will enjoy it and benefit from it, so it makes sense that everyone should pay for it.

W/O good rationale, that is my current thoughts.

As far as I can remember, "Soul Stripper" was my fav!

[LoneStarMike]

Here's an article from this week's Austin Chronicle with more about the white-water rafting idea.


Rafting the Great Waller
BY WELLS DUNBAR (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A467056)
April 20, 2007

After decades of rocky starts and stops, the rebirth of Waller Creek � that urban stream running prominently through Downtown � is ready to take to the water. With the county's help, the city will soon undertake a $124 million tunnel project to keep the creek's flow and water level safe and constant. Aside from pulling a million square feet of developable, desirable land out of the hundred-year floodplain, the project is trumpeted as bridging the east-west separation of I-35. But one outdoorsman envisions yet another use for Waller, one that may sound impractical or downright bizarre at first: converting the sleepy creek into white-water rafting rapids, capable of holding the sport's national championships.

"I speak creeks," says Jim Stuart, winding along Waller's trash-strewn trail. "This one's been maligned, mistreated, and misunderstood." Stuart should know. Prior to his career in international telecommunications, he spent 20 years in the nascent, pre-REI outdoors industry, mainly in kayaking and rafting; his friends outfitted Ned Beatty with his Deliverance river gear (and mercifully, not his famous squeal). But it was his second career that drew Stuart to Austin three years ago, and, more specifically, to a tech conference at the Convention Center. There, he had an aquatic epiphany of sorts.

"I walked out the door and said holy cow � I saw the creek running, right next to a convention center, restaurants, and hotels in the middle of Downtown. And a lot of the infrastructure is already there."

The creek's urban environment is a far cry from the Savage River's surroundings in western Maryland � in the late 1980s, Stuart had a hand in organizing the world white-water rafting championships there, a planning catastrophe akin to crossing the Alps. Bringing in thousands of contestants and spectators by train, amassing caravans to the lake, and arranging a battalion of Porta-Potties provided "huge logistical problems," he says. Comparatively, Waller runs past all the amenities a modern Downtown could offer.

"I look at this as primarily a theme around which developers can build," says Stuart; aside from attracting sporting events and outdoor conventions, he sees additional revenue in kayaking and rafting concessions for the creek and the possibility of making Austin a regional leader in emergency water-rescue training. Lastly, he says the currents would keep the waters clean, a far cry from Waller's current sludgy state. "I don't want to overstate its importance, but I look at this as something like the Jack Kennedy moon mission," Stuart says. "Forget the white-water park � I view this as a commitment by the city to stay green, to be in the top environmental tier."
Astonishingly, there's somewhat of a precedent for this type of urban rapids. Denver's Confluence Park offers white-water rafting through Lower Downtown; similarly, South Bend, Ind., has seen millions of development dollars drive Warehouse District-like restaurants and stores around its East Race Waterway. The main investment required is a stronger pump to recirculate the water. The pump station planned at Waterloo should move the water along at a leisurely 5 cubic feet per second. Stuart says upgrading to two 175 cubic-feet-per-second pumps would allow planners to ratchet up the rapids for competitions, keep them at a more moderate rate for enthusiasts during concession hours, and leave the water at its regular gait otherwise.

It wouldn't be the first time the city has considered a white-water park. The Lower Colorado River Authority paid for a white-water study at Longhorn Dam back in 1994, says Butch Smith, senior planner at the Parks Department. But the price � a little less than $5 million � kept it from reaching a bond election. (It's appropriate to mention that nontraditional sports like skateboarding and BMX got their due in the most recent bond election.)

Periodically, Smith says, people revisit the idea of a park at Longhorn or elsewhere, "but this idea that Jim Stuart has about Waller Creek has more merit than most of them. It's a very exciting idea." Unlike a man-made park by the dam, he says Waller is a "natural setting" for white water; moreover, a 70-foot drop between Waterloo Park and Town Lake gives Waller the continuous, easy gradient white water requires. Lastly, Austin's an ideal setting for rafting because of its warm climate, Smith says. While there's still a multitude of questions about the tunnel project � like what form funding for parks and trails along the creek will come in, the $124 million only covers the tunnel, pump, an inlet at Waterloo, and an amphitheatre at Town Lake � Smith is confident Stuart's vision could be incorporated into the project. "I certainly think Jim Stuart has a lot of experience and expertise. I'm confident with his take on the site."

Sheryl Cole, the City Council member pushing the tunnel project, isn't quite so sure. "At this stage, I don't know if it's feasible," noting that her recently created Waller Creek Citizens Advisory Committee is being assembled to consider such ideas. "But as far as I know, none of the ideas consider white water. � We would really have to evaluate whether that's something the city wants Downtown," one compatible with her vision of a "very Austin-like amenity." Good point � but what would be Austin weirder than looking out the deck of the Boiling Pot on Sixth Street and seeing kayakers white-knuckle down Waller Creek?

For more photos see the Web Extra Photo Feature "A Stroll Along Waller Creek. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A467057)"

It was aleady posted earlier, but here again is the link to Jim Stuart's

Waller Creek Whitewater Trail (http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail.html)

A Proposal to Develop Waller Creek from Waterloo Park to Town Lake Into the Nation's Premier Urban Environmental Park Austin, Texas

http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail_files/Big%20Picture.png

I don't know if the plan is feasible or not, but it certainly is unique and definitely ties in with Keep Austin Weird.

[Mopacs]

Very intriguing idea... I think a white-water concept could work, if planned and financed right. On the other hand, those who prefer a more serene urban setting would certainly oppose such a plan. Time will tell, but I would personally be in favor of it.

[greenbelt]

Here's an article from this week's Austin Chronicle with more about the white-water rafting idea.
http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail_files/Big%20Picture.png
I don't know if the plan is feasible or not, but it certainly is unique and definitely ties in with Keep Austin Weird.

Awesome...a Six Flags Roaring Rapids in downtown Austin? What's not to love? :banana:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f386/streetwise2/Scan10024.jpg

[greenbelt]

All jokes aside, i really do like the plan. It fits Austin and it's unique. Their could be a real buzz built around this idea.

[Saddle Man]

It's a great idea. I love it. BUT, it probably won't happen because of lack vision by politicans (Sheryl Cole). We already have a calm water urban park called Town Lake. Waller creek needs action. Besides, it won't be flowing at peak speeds all of the time.

[rad707]

Manmade? Sounds a little hokey after experiencing the real thing in a previous life:

http://www.richmondraft.com/raft.htm

[JAM]

Interesting concept. Sounds more expensive than just having larger pumps. The faster water would induce more erosion. The faster currents produce a larger liability to the city and nearby business as people fall in, get swept away and drown. The creek would have to be built up to compensate for the kayak's. Then there is always the risk that screaming and yelling people may drive a portion of the daytime dollar bearing population away and in turn, business and tax base.

I think just having a flowing creek thru downtown is awesome all by itself.

[arbeiter]

By that rational, any new road, sewer line, bike trail, or whatever public project, should be paid for by only those who have property that are directly on and affected by the improvement.

I absolutely disagree. That's like saying I shouldn't pay for the upkeep of Yellowstone because I don't live in Wyoming, or that I shouldn't pay gasoline taxes on fuel because I'll never take IH-10. Public works for the benefit of the entire city need to be paid for by the entire city.

Now, if they want to go the route similar to toll roads and levy a specific charge or bond related to a special improvement district, then fine. But Waller Creek doesn't even have any real businesses on it of the type that this project will attract; having extra business costs associated with operating will not encourage critical mass of development.

[Saddle Man]

I absolutely disagree. That's like saying I shouldn't pay for the upkeep of Yellowstone because I don't live in Wyoming, or that I shouldn't pay gasoline taxes on fuel because I'll never take IH-10. Public works for the benefit of the entire city need to be paid for by the entire city.

Now, if they want to go the route similar to toll roads and levy a specific charge or bond related to a special improvement district, then fine. But Waller Creek doesn't even have any real businesses on it of the type that this project will attract; having extra business costs associated with operating will not encourage critical mass of development.

No, you absolutely agree with me. You took my comment out of context. In context, we agree. Everyone should pay for it, not just those near it.

[JAM]

No, you absolutely agree with me. You took my comment out of context. In context, we agree. Everyone should pay for it, not just those near it.

This very subject came to my mind when I saw the post concerning Barton Springs.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=129516

Funny how no council member or anyone else associated with that particular project ever mentioned that nearby residents should have to pay for the improvements, since they can use it the most. There are also lots of businesses (apartments) nearby.

[arbeiter]

No, you absolutely agree with me. You took my comment out of context. In context, we agree. Everyone should pay for it, not just those near it.

Oops, I am so sorry. I quoted the wrong response. You and I are on the same page.

[arbeiter]

There are also lots of businesses (apartments) nearby.

The only one I can think of are the condos at the Hilton...

[Saddle Man]

It's all good. I can only think of 555, Avenue Lofts, and the Sabine (which is under conversion).

[JAM]

The only one I can think of are the condos at the Hilton...

was referring to the Barton Springs project.

[Jdawgboy]

Question, Is that site at the corner of 4th and Red River across from the Convention Center where they putting the equipment and pipes at for this project because Ive noticed for some time that there is a bunch of pipes and other things on that site but was not really sure what it was for? Or is that part of what they were doing for the Convention center parking garage? Also does anybody know when they are starting construction?

[LoneStarMike]

Jim Stuart gave a brief presentation of the Waller Creek Whitewater Trail concept at the Austin Downtown Commission's meeting this past Wednesday. I watched the re-play on Channel 6 Sunday afternoon and he touched on some of the concerns that other posters have brought up.

Interesting concept. Sounds more expensive than just having larger pumps. The faster water would induce more erosion.

I think erosion mainly occurs during flooding when the water in Waller Creek rises higher than it would normally be.

The whole point of the tunnel is to reduce the risk of the creek rising so high. I think it might not matter so much how fast the water in the creek was flowing as long as it remains below flood stage and within it's banks. Obviously, the tunnel wouldn't entirely eliminate the risk of flooding, but the risk would be greatly reduced.

Also, parts of the creek bank are already eroded, so the city is going to have to engage in some sort of stream bank stabilization anyway, regardless of whether or not Waller goes whitewater.

One thing that definitely would be more expensive is the cost of pumping the water. If the creek winds up having a flow similar to San Antonio's Riverwalk, it would cost between $200 - $300 per hour to keep the water flowing.

If the flow is increased to accommodate rafting or other whitewater activities, the cost could increase to between $800 - $1000 per hour.

Stuart suggested that the city would most likely want to limit (or prohibit entirely) the ability of private citizens to take their own kayaks or rafts or tubes down to that mile-long section of the creek and just jump in. I can understand that. Why should I expect the city to spend an additional $500 - $700 per hour several hours a day, just so I can take my personal equipment and go rafting/kayaking/tubing for free?

The rafting concessionaires would most likely have to absorb these additional costs, but that would just be part of their cost of doing business and they'd still wind up making money, anyway.

The faster currents produce a larger liability to the city and nearby business as people fall in, get swept away and drown.

The proposed whitewater trail would be one mile long and he stressed it would be gentle rapids most of the time. as opposed to "Grand Canyon - Style" rapids. I think he mentioned that during the parts of the day the creek was being used for rafting, the flow would be somewhere between 100 - 175 cfs, then much less during the evening. He said during the evening (after rafting was over for the day) the creek would basically be an attractive amenity for tourists and locals to enjoy.

The only times (other than really major weather events) when you'd have "Grand Canyon - Style" rapids would be during official whitewater competitions and/or during swift-water rescue training.

Speaking of swift-water rescue training, Stuart said that San Marcos can accommodate some types of swift-water rescue training, but for other types, emergency workers must often travel out of state at a cost of roughly $300 per day.

His opinion was that In order for swift-water rescue training to be effective, it needs to be practiced frequently, but due to the current costs of going out of town, ( and the time involved) it's not.

Using Waller Creek for swift-water recue training purposes would save the city money in travel costs, and would provide for more frequent swift-water recue training for our emergency workers. Additionally, the city might be able to generate additional revenue by using the creek to train emergency workers from other parts of the country. The city could administer the program itself, or use an outside firm.

The creek would have to be built up to compensate for the kayak's.

As far as the creek being able to support the types of whitewater activities being proposed, he said the stream bed itself is in good shape now and only minor modifications would be needed and they're the types of things you'd have to do as part of a stream bank stabilization program, which is something the city would have to do anyway, regardless of whether or not Waller Creek goes whitewater.

He also said that since Waller Creek is kind of narrow, it wouldn't take much water to be able to float these rafts and kayaks. In most places, he said, the water would only be knee deep.

Then there is always the risk that screaming and yelling people may drive a portion of the daytime dollar bearing population away and in turn, business and tax base.

There's not much spending (day or night) in the area as it is. Part of the problem, said Stuart is that it's a place no one wants to go. The water is dirty and it stinks, there's trash everywhere, the area is not maintained and since it's seldom used, it's deserted and scary.

He said historically, cities that have built these types of water parks have a ratio of about 10 spectators for every 1 person actually on the water. His thinking is that having a scenic place where folks can watch other people having fun and listen to the sounds of the rushing water will attract more people to the area. More people and activity in the area would help reduce blight and spur more development.

One of the questions he was asked after his presentation was why he was so interested in this idea and did he have a business plan he wanted to follow through with if the whitewater trail became a reality.

He answered no - that he was just just a whitewater enthusiust and wanted to facilitate the exploration of educating people about the possibility of using Waller Creek for that purpose. He also felt that, regardless of whether or not the whitewater idea came to fruition, the city would still benefit by looking into the matter because there are many professionals out there with experience in engineering and operating these types of parks who also know a lot about flood mitigtion, stream bank stabilization, liabilities, etc. and it would be a matter of them coming down to talk to city officials and answer questions. He also claimed that many of these companies were quite cost competitive.

The Downtown Commission noted that they were still in the early stages of design and planning for the Waller Creek Tunnel and suggested that Stuart get with the Waller Creek Advisory board and make his presentation to them, and perhaps consider serving on the board. That pretty much ended the discussion on the matter (for now.)

[priller]

Question, Is that site at the corner of 4th and Red River across from the Convention Center where they putting the equipment and pipes at for this project because Ive noticed for some time that there is a bunch of pipes and other things on that site but was not really sure what it was for? Or is that part of what they were doing for the Convention center parking garage? Also does anybody know when they are starting construction?

I don't think they've started construction yet, because I think the city still has to approve the plan (which is supposed to happen any day). Then they'll have to finalize the details of the plan, etc, etc, etc.

BTW, my wife and I just bought one of the condos at The Sabine. Much better price than at the new towers. Rooms have nice tall ceilings. And with the Waller Creek renovations, we're hoping the property will be much more valuable in about 5-6 years. They just started selling these units about 3 weeks ago, and told us that they sold 30 of the 80 units in the first 2 weeks.

[JAM]

News: June 29, 2007

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A497023

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/5900/pols_naked-39758.jpeg
If it seems as though it took an eternity for the Waller Creek tunnel project to get going, it's been nearly that long – this rendering dates back to the plan's inception back in the 1970s.
Image courtesy of The City of Austin


Wallering at Last
By Kimberly Reeves

City Council approved the financial instrument to fund the Waller Creek tunnel project last week with such a lack of fanfare that one might assume that getting the touted future Riverwalk off the ground had been no problem at all.

So let's review the recent history: Voters approved $25 million in bonds back in 1998. The money wasn't enough. The economy tanked. The city drafted three new versions of the project, all with price tags well beyond city means. Downtown revived. The city turned to the county to issue bonds. Commissioners, especially outgoing Commissioner Karen Sonleitner, rejected it. The city had another bond issue. The tunnel project was kicked out. Development Downtown continued. Commissioners changed. The city crafted a more appealing tax-increment finance zone. Finally, both the city and county were on board. It's a little like Kabuki theatre.

The Waller Creek Citizen Advisory Committee – a cross section of stakeholders – met this month for its first briefing on the project, which has been in the works since the early 1970s. This – not the city or county – will be the group charged with approving the final financing plan for the $123 million project. Chief Financial Officer John Stephens presented an overview of the tax-increment finance district, which will use all of the city's and half the county's incremental property-tax dollars to pay for the tunnel. Jim Robertson of Neighborhood Planning and Zoning reviewed the tunnel's history.

Stephens estimated the design of the project – a tunnel under Waller Creek to divert flood waters to Town Lake – would begin in September and take two years. The construction contract would be awarded in either late summer or early fall 2010. The tunnel will be operational in 2016.

If you're waiting on property values to rise along the bank to support this new Riverwalk-like venture, that's a whole lot of waiting. To stem the financial tide of project costs, the city will delay issuing bonds as long as possible and has pledged money it saved when Hilton's Convention Center hotel was refinanced early this year. That cash flow will produce an additional $10 million the first five years.

"This is an additional source of revenue that strengthens our financial plan," Stephens told the group. "It will be used, first, to cover the debt service in the early to midyears of the TIF [district]. Second, it will provide a margin of safety to fund any project cost increases."

"Was the city anticipating project cost increases?" asked the group, remembering that the initial tab on this project was $25 million.

"None that we can foresee, but it's a long and complex project," Stephens said. "Once we've addressed both those issues, this can also be used for amenities."

Amenities are likely to be a big topic. The more bells and whistles the city can put on this project, the more it's going to look like a Riverwalk. Board members are already eyeing the city's parkland dedication fees. Those fees must be used in a small locus around the project that paid the fees. That means Downtown development could be a real boost to building some renewed interest in Waller Creek, such as repairing the broken bike paths along the creek.

Robertson said an initial charrette had emphasized street connections and varied treatments for different "zones" along the creek. Those plans actually look a lot like today's vision for the creek, except that Waller Creek would exist in a Downtown that includes multiple high-rises and towers, which no one envisioned in 1998.

This Waller Creek plan will be folded into the ongoing Downtown plan. That includes entitlements on the bank-side land, as well as unifying design elements for the area, Robertson said. The tunnel will bring about a million square feet of land out of the floodplain.

Already, committee members are talking about beautifying the area to reacquaint locals with a long-neglected and often unsightly creek. That's going to be tricky, as members want to make sure they don't spend money on an improvement that will ultimately be swallowed up by the impending construction project.

[priller]

Thanks for the news! So now we have 2 years of planning? I kind of thought there already were plans.

:shrug:

[JAM]

Thanks for the news! So now we have 2 years of planning? I kind of thought there already were plans.

:shrug:

According to the article, the tunnel won't even be operational until 2016. To my understanding, that is just the part that keeps it from flooding. I'm wondering if amenities such as sidewalks, bridges, etc, can start to be added w/o tunnel completion?

[paulsjv]

Wow 2016 for completion. So that really means 2018 or 2019 with how things usually work. ;) And here I thought we were going to have a cool water park or river walk ready in the next 5 years! doh! ;)

[JAM]

Wow 2016 for completion. So that really means 2018 or 2019 with how things usually work. ;) And here I thought we were going to have a cool water park or river walk ready in the next 5 years! doh! ;)

Lets hope not. I'm hoping the economics of the whole endeavor will induce much earlier investments.

[KevinFromTexas]

That would suck. A 50 year wait. :stunned:

[paulsjv]

That would suck. A 50 year wait. :stunned:

yeah it would... right now as it stands i would get to use it in my 40s. er.. but i'd still use it as much as i could! :)

[JAM]

Biked up Waller Creek a few weekends ago. These photos start near 7th and end past UT. Lots of homeless sleeping and hanging out along the trail that morning, until around 15th St.

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_1.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/1.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_2.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/2.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_3.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/3.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_4.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/4.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_5.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/5.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_6.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/6.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_7.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/7.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_8.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/8.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_9.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/9.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_10.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/10.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_12.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/12.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_13.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/13.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_14.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/14.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_15.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/15.jpg)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/th_16.jpg (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/TEXASJAM/Waller%20Creek/16.jpg)

[paulsjv]

Nice photos! I've been meaning to head down Waller Creek from Town Lake and check out the trail. Maybe I'll do that this weekend! ;)

[ATXboom]

www.auschron.com - article can be found here.


Photo by Jana BirchumThe weird mechanics of building the off-again, on-again Waller Creek Tunnel Project could start making sense in the coming months, though the project itself won't see completion until 2014.

The $124 million plan calls for development along Waller Creek beds, pedestrian trails, and a new drainage system. A citizens' advisory committee has set a tentative date of Nov. 17 for a town hall meeting on the milelong tunnel, which will sit almost 70 feet below the creek bed and maintain a constant flow of cycling water.

The tunnel, which will stretch from an inlet at Waterloo Park to an outlet at Lady Bird Lake, is expected to turn what has become a sporadic and brackish drainage ditch into an actual free-flowing water source that will flow at a pace of a "babbling Hill Country brook." That's according to lead contractor Espey Consultants, which last week briefed an assortment of stakeholders.

The final plan for the tunnel won't be presented to council for approval until December 2008. In the interim, a consultant team will be setting the parameters of the project to determine the speed of the water flow and the extent of the drainage – all while protecting critical environmental features along the route, engineer Brian Reis told a citizens' advisory committee. And because the tunnel is primarily a flood-control device, four inlets will be carved out along the route to make sure the proper amount of land is being drained and taken out of the floodplain.

As the tunnel is being designed, the city will bring a consultant onboard to plan the concept of commercial and residential development along the creek banks. A bid for that consultant will go out by the end of this year, with the goal of having a team selected by late next spring.

The tunnel team tentatively has divided the creek into five segments along the route – each with its own personality and context – and the consultant is expected to move that concept forward with plans for the type and scope of desired development along the creek.

At last week's meeting, city planner Michael Knox presented eight projects already in the works along the creek's banks just outside the floodplain. Those range from the Legacy at Town Lake at the foot of Rainey Street to a new indoor-outdoor venue for Stubb's to the renovated Sabine on Fifth condo redevelopment to the Red River Flats. Most of the projects are expected to be completed within a year.

Charlie McCabe, executive director of the Austin Parks Founda­tion, an active stakeholder in the project, outlined the challenges of refurbishing Waller Creek and its disconnected pieces of trail, some of which have been buried by silt in floods, while more visible portions are difficult to walk or ride a bicycle on.

Who's footing the bill for the tunnel work? We are. The cost of the project is being divided between city bonds and a tax-increment finance district co-sponsored by the city and county.

[ATXboom]

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2007/11/12/story5.html?b=1194843600^1547726&page=2


Friday, November 9, 2007
City seeks lead planner for Waller CreekAustin Business Journal - by A.J.

The city plans to issue a request for qualifications to land planning, architecture and similar types of firms on or around Nov. 19 in order to designate a lead firm to create a master plan for the property on lower Waller Creek between 12th Street and Lady Bird Lake downtown.

George Adams, assistant director of the Planning and Zoning Department, says city staffers hope to bring a firm to the City Council for approval no later than February.

The planning contract is valued at about $400,000.

The $127.5 million Waller Creek Tunnel project would create a stormwater bypass tunnel under the creek bed to regulate the flow of water and eliminate the flooding that plagues the properties along the creek during heavy rains.

Beyond increasing flood safety, the project would also open up a great deal of property to new development in what some envision as Austin's version of San Antonio's Riverwalk -- a shopping and entertainment mecca that would anchor the eastern half of downtown.

The project has been on and off for more than a decade, but finally gained traction once again in March when Travis County commissioners agreed to create a tax increment financing district with the city of Austin to fund the project.

Adams says the land planning and urban design contract is "especially significant, not only because we want it to be the right type of development and environment from an aesthetic and functional point of view, but [because] the increase in property taxes will go to pay off the bonds for the tunnel, making [the plan] doubly important."

In September, the City Council amended a nearly $30 million contract with a joint venture between Kellogg Brown and Root and Espey Consultants for engineering design services on the actual tunnel.

Construction on the tunnel is likely to begin in 2010.

Developer Robert Knight, who owns several pieces of property along Waller, says he's pleased that the redevelopment of the area is moving forward, but he's concerned that key stakeholders might not be heard.

Knight says the Lower Waller Creek Neighborhood Association, a group of more than 40 property owners along the creek from 12th Street to Lady Bird Lake, was not asked to participate in the citizens advisory committee formed last summer to oversee the tunnel project and redevelopment initiative.

"I think everyone has the same basic concept of what this [project] ought to look like, and this [land plan] will help move the process forward," he says.

But, he adds that the city should be careful not to create a plan that tells private landowners what should be done with their property without their input.

On Nov. 17 Council Member Sheryl Cole and the advisory committee will hold the first Waller Creek corridor community visioning meeting from 9 a.m. to noon at City Hall. The meeting is intended to gather input on what stakeholders would like to see happen along the creek.

Knight says he hopes whichever group is selected to develop the land plan carefully considers the desires of those who actually own the property affected.

amistretta@bizjournals.com | (512) 494-2519

[Mopacs]

Conceptual drawing from the ABJ article:

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/102245-400-0.jpg?rev=2

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/102245-400-0.jpg?rev=2

[austin242]

I didn't think this Project Had a Chance but turns out it may actually happen.

Waller Creek Project Status Report
February 22, 2008
Waller Creek Tunnel Design
• Initial project schedule was submitted by design team and approved
• Field Work
o General site surveying is complete
o Initial geotechnical borings are complete
o Initial SUE services are complete
• Easements are being identified for development of field notes
• Meetings with Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) and the Austin Rowing Club are
ongoing for needs at the outlet (located at Lady Bird Lake)
• Upcoming milestones
o Council action on WCCAC resolution on February 28th
o Working with PARD on parkland mitigation requirements
o Outlet and inlet schematics are in development and expected to be available in April
2008
Waller Creek District Master Plan
• The Request for Qualifications responses were due January 23, 2008
• Five responses will be evaluated
• Next Steps:
o Evaluation panel commences work (Late February)
o List of firms to be interviewed developed (Early March)
o Interviews conducted (Late March)
o Recommendations to Council and Council Action on selection of firm (April 2008)
o Contract finalized (Summer 2008)
Public Involvement
• Stakeholder meetings continue to take place for both the tunnel and master plan projects
• Next public design workshop will be held in April 2008 (exact date/time/location TBD)
• Spring 2008 edition of project newsletter coming soon
• An updated version of the survey used at the November 2007 public design workshop will
be posted on the project website in March 2008 for the public to provide additional input







Looks Like this is going to actually happen :tup:

[priller]

Yes, the Waller Creek plan is all approved and both city and county have approved the funding of their respective parts. It's definitely on.

[Jdawgboy]

Yea I knew that this was happening all along. It takes time to get a project like this going but sure enough there is the proof that it is definatly a go.

[pato79]

Will we get a proposed completion date soon?

[bgrn198]

I love going down to the Riverwalk in SA and think it would be grat to have something like that here in Austin where you can go to a restaurant and eat down by the river and take the whole family I also like it when they decorate the Riverwalk during Christmas.

[Jdawgboy]

Will we get a proposed completion date soon?

I doubt it at this stage. I would assume we still have alittle ways to go. But at least there is progress.

[ATXboom]

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2008/03/17/daily31.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Kevin - ABJ does not site authors...

Friday, March 21, 2008 - 9:07 AM CDT
Wynn appointed chair of Waller Creek Tunnel project
Austin Business Journal

The Austin City Council appointed Mayor Will Wynn as chairman of the board of directors for the Waller Creek Tunnel project's tax increment financing reinvestment zone. The City Council also approved the TIF's financing plan.

The TIF was created last June to finance the Waller Creek Tunnel Project. The TIF's board of directors comprises the Austin City Council and Travis County, which will also levy taxes on property in the TIF. TIFs generally use future gains in tax revenue to finance construction and other improvements in a designated zone.

The TIF will meet periodically to make recommendations to the City Council and Travis County Commissioners Court regarding the design, construction and financing of the Waller Creek Tunnel Project. The project will remove over a million square feet of land from the floodplains of the lower Waller Creek watershed, allowing denser development in the area.

The city is currently evaluating bids for the project's planner. Construction is expected to begin in 2010.

[KevinFromTexas]

Take the survey to speak your mind about how you would like Waller Creek to look. Deadline is May 31st. Click on Vision/Master Plan and click on 'online survey'.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/wallercreek/default.htm

[MichaelB]

Take the survey to speak your mind about how you would like Waller Creek to look. Deadline is May 31st. Click on Vision/Master Plan and click on 'online survey'.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/wallercreek/default.htm

Done.... thank you for posting this Kevin

[Jdawgboy]

I did about two to three weeks ago. I hope it will become a very urban built up area more-so than then the San Antonio Riverwalk with lots of shopping, dining, clubs and highrises on both sides.

[Saddle Man]

I know a guy who works for the firm that's doing all the permitting for this. They're having a meeting today about getting all their shit together so that things run smoothly. So, if yall didn't already know: 1. a large part of Waterloo Park will be turned into a lagoon to accommodate Town Lake water being pumped through the tunnel, 2. There will be 3 damns (maybe 4, I can't quite remember) at 11th, 8th, and 4th. This means absolutely no white water rapids, which makes me VERY unhappy. The city wants a calm water to prevent scouring. 3. There will be no music venue at Waller Beach, because the city said it's too expensive.

[KevinFromTexas]

Hmm, well that's kind of a letdown. On that survey they ask what kind of atmosphere you want with the creek walk. I'm kind of hoping for a mix of both urban and open/natural. I'd like to see the Waterloo Park area be kind of open space with grassy areas. That would work well with the lagoon for the pumps. Maybe a public plaza with a fountain there. Have that area be open. There would be views of the Capitol. Waterloo Park is really underutilized, this could help it to be more attractive.

Then farther south have it be more urban like San Antonio's Riverwalk. Residential, restaurants/sidewalk cafes, retail and other uses. And of course highrises.

[ATXboom]

Why don't they put up a creek venue on the November's ballot... probably would have a better chance than light rail!

[Jdawgboy]

That would definatly not be good if there wasn't a music venue there and I made a point in the survey in the section that askes what issues you think are important. I made sure to mention the strong need for a venue of at least 30K or higher in the central city area.

[priller]

Oh, I thought the music venue was a really cool idea. I see they no longer feature that on the Waller Creek tunnel web site. That's a real shame.

[ATXboom]

Maybe something creative if the city really wants to do this...

find a corporate sponsor to build and name the amphitheater... Silicon Labs Amphitheater... Dell Amphitheter, National Instruments, etc

[Myomi]

I actually went one of the townhall meetings last year and at the time the music venue/amphitheater was still in the plan. However, I think I was probably one just a few people that liked the idea. Beside that, there was a very vocal opposition to it. People apperantly though it looked to artifical and didn't fit with the "natural surrondings" that the hike and bike trail should have. After the meeting they said that they were going to probably take that feature out because the public didn't want it. I guess it is another example of a vocal group speaking for all of Austin.

[Raining Inside]

I actually went one of the townhall meetings last year and at the time the music venue/amphitheater was still in the plan. However, I think I was probably one just a few people that liked the idea. Beside that, there was a very vocal opposition to it. People apperantly though it looked to artifical and didn't fit with the "natural surrondings" that the hike and bike trail should have. After the meeting they said that they were going to probably take that feature out because the public didn't want it. I guess it is another example of a vocal group speaking for all of Austin.

Yeah, that's politics. Those who yell the loudest too often get their way even when they are not representative of the entire population. That's why NIMBYs suck.

[ATXboom]

YEP>

NIMBY's often DO NOT represent the majority. It is really a broken loophole in local politics.

...maybe the plans change once they see overwhelming support on the survey???

[Saddle Man]

From how I understand it. The music venue, like the white water rapids, is completely dead. It ain't gonna happen. Nope. Not at all. Even with the surveys. The city just doesn't want to pay for it. Plain and simple. So any conversation about getting it now is moot.

[JAM]

I recently heard that the city is using 100% of property tax in the tax zone created for this project. The concern was that since this was occuring, the city would not be able to improve other items in those areas, such as sewers, water supply, roads, sidewalks, ect. Does anyone know if this is true or how this tax zone works?

[ATXboom]

If the community wants it there are other ways to get it done... namely a corporate sponsor!

[Saddle Man]

That would just needlessly complicate and slow down the whole project. I'd like to see an amphitheater built, but it seems that it has already been decided that it's not going to happen.

[ATXboom]

Waller Creek Vision with renderings...


Visions of Waller Creek tunnel take shape
By Katie Humphrey | Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 11:57 AM

A workshop tonight about the Waller Creek Project will give the community a chance to see the latest renderings of the projects and hear progress updates on the tunnel and development.

The tunnel, hailed as a development akin to San Antonio’s Riverwalk, is a long-planned solution to flooding in the eastern portion of downtown. A mile-long underground tunnel with a 22-foot diameter will route storm water from Waterloo Park to Lady Bird Lake.

The most recent renderings, based input from previous workshops, show the future possibilities for Waterloo Park and the area at the end of the tunnel near Lady Bird Lake.

The project has been in the works for years, but stalled with rising costs. The City of Austin and Travis County paired up last year to share the $124 million cost of the tunnel.

The meeting will be held begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Thompson Conference Center, 2405 Robert Dedman Drive.

But, if you just can’t wait until then to see what the Waller Creek Tunnel might look like, here’s a look at some of the proposed ideas:


This sketch shows a draft perspective of the inlet at Waterloo Park from the corner of 12th Street and Red River. Credit: MWM Design Group



This is a draft schematic for Waterloo Park, where the tunnel inlet will be located. Credit: MWM Design GroupPermalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment

Comments
Click here to report comment abuse.

By Spud

April 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Hey! I have an idea!

Since we renamed Town Lake after Hank Hill’s dog, let’s rename Waller Creek to Lena Guerrero Waterway…and where Lena Guerrero Waterway enters Lady Bird Lake, we can call it the “Liberal Amalgamation.”

By WOW! Only $100million off!

April 30, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

What started off as a $25million bond prop. pipe dream is now $125million. Do you guys have a handle on the true cost of this boondoggle?

By Hix

April 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Cui bono?

By jeff

April 30, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Why not just dig a huge “borrow ditch” from the University campus to Town Lake. Then use the borrowed dirt to build a big skateboard hill.

By ricky dardar

April 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Great! Another place for the bums to crap and pee.

By Arch Offender

April 30, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

The first five commenters must be from Williamson County.

By Tye

April 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Improvements to Waller Creek are WAAAAY overdue. Downtown Austin has been lucky to have not been subject to a massive rainstorm, which would flood a significant portion of downtown. The Waller Creek tunnel project is first and foremost PROTECTION against a disasterous flood. Also making it aesthetic and useful to the public is an additional benefit. How can anyone oppose this?

By Ed Bluestein

April 30, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

this should have been built back in the 90s. why does it take so long for austin to build infrastructure?

By Brad

April 30, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

Tye is right. If you look at the existing and proposed 100-year flood plains along Waller Creek, the benefits of this project are obvious. And if you’re going to do it, do it right. Make it an attractive, usable space, not a concrete eyesore…which would be much more of a homeless refuge than what is proposed.

By Swen

April 30, 2008 6:21 PM | Link to this

The Arch Offender must be from San Francisco.

[Jdawgboy]

Can you post the link to see the renderings please?

[KevinFromTexas]

Can you post the link to see the renderings please?

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2008/04/30/

[bgrn198]

Here's an article from this week's Austin Chronicle with more about the white-water rafting idea.


Rafting the Great Waller
BY WELLS DUNBAR (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A467056)
April 20, 2007

After decades of rocky starts and stops, the rebirth of Waller Creek � that urban stream running prominently through Downtown � is ready to take to the water. With the county's help, the city will soon undertake a $124 million tunnel project to keep the creek's flow and water level safe and constant. Aside from pulling a million square feet of developable, desirable land out of the hundred-year floodplain, the project is trumpeted as bridging the east-west separation of I-35. But one outdoorsman envisions yet another use for Waller, one that may sound impractical or downright bizarre at first: converting the sleepy creek into white-water rafting rapids, capable of holding the sport's national championships.

"I speak creeks," says Jim Stuart, winding along Waller's trash-strewn trail. "This one's been maligned, mistreated, and misunderstood." Stuart should know. Prior to his career in international telecommunications, he spent 20 years in the nascent, pre-REI outdoors industry, mainly in kayaking and rafting; his friends outfitted Ned Beatty with his Deliverance river gear (and mercifully, not his famous squeal). But it was his second career that drew Stuart to Austin three years ago, and, more specifically, to a tech conference at the Convention Center. There, he had an aquatic epiphany of sorts.

"I walked out the door and said holy cow � I saw the creek running, right next to a convention center, restaurants, and hotels in the middle of Downtown. And a lot of the infrastructure is already there."

The creek's urban environment is a far cry from the Savage River's surroundings in western Maryland � in the late 1980s, Stuart had a hand in organizing the world white-water rafting championships there, a planning catastrophe akin to crossing the Alps. Bringing in thousands of contestants and spectators by train, amassing caravans to the lake, and arranging a battalion of Porta-Potties provided "huge logistical problems," he says. Comparatively, Waller runs past all the amenities a modern Downtown could offer.

"I look at this as primarily a theme around which developers can build," says Stuart; aside from attracting sporting events and outdoor conventions, he sees additional revenue in kayaking and rafting concessions for the creek and the possibility of making Austin a regional leader in emergency water-rescue training. Lastly, he says the currents would keep the waters clean, a far cry from Waller's current sludgy state. "I don't want to overstate its importance, but I look at this as something like the Jack Kennedy moon mission," Stuart says. "Forget the white-water park � I view this as a commitment by the city to stay green, to be in the top environmental tier."
Astonishingly, there's somewhat of a precedent for this type of urban rapids. Denver's Confluence Park offers white-water rafting through Lower Downtown; similarly, South Bend, Ind., has seen millions of development dollars drive Warehouse District-like restaurants and stores around its East Race Waterway. The main investment required is a stronger pump to recirculate the water. The pump station planned at Waterloo should move the water along at a leisurely 5 cubic feet per second. Stuart says upgrading to two 175 cubic-feet-per-second pumps would allow planners to ratchet up the rapids for competitions, keep them at a more moderate rate for enthusiasts during concession hours, and leave the water at its regular gait otherwise.

It wouldn't be the first time the city has considered a white-water park. The Lower Colorado River Authority paid for a white-water study at Longhorn Dam back in 1994, says Butch Smith, senior planner at the Parks Department. But the price � a little less than $5 million � kept it from reaching a bond election. (It's appropriate to mention that nontraditional sports like skateboarding and BMX got their due in the most recent bond election.)

Periodically, Smith says, people revisit the idea of a park at Longhorn or elsewhere, "but this idea that Jim Stuart has about Waller Creek has more merit than most of them. It's a very exciting idea." Unlike a man-made park by the dam, he says Waller is a "natural setting" for white water; moreover, a 70-foot drop between Waterloo Park and Town Lake gives Waller the continuous, easy gradient white water requires. Lastly, Austin's an ideal setting for rafting because of its warm climate, Smith says. While there's still a multitude of questions about the tunnel project � like what form funding for parks and trails along the creek will come in, the $124 million only covers the tunnel, pump, an inlet at Waterloo, and an amphitheatre at Town Lake � Smith is confident Stuart's vision could be incorporated into the project. "I certainly think Jim Stuart has a lot of experience and expertise. I'm confident with his take on the site."

Sheryl Cole, the City Council member pushing the tunnel project, isn't quite so sure. "At this stage, I don't know if it's feasible," noting that her recently created Waller Creek Citizens Advisory Committee is being assembled to consider such ideas. "But as far as I know, none of the ideas consider white water. � We would really have to evaluate whether that's something the city wants Downtown," one compatible with her vision of a "very Austin-like amenity." Good point � but what would be Austin weirder than looking out the deck of the Boiling Pot on Sixth Street and seeing kayakers white-knuckle down Waller Creek?

For more photos see the Web Extra Photo Feature "A Stroll Along Waller Creek. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A467057)"

It was aleady posted earlier, but here again is the link to Jim Stuart's

Waller Creek Whitewater Trail (http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail.html)

A Proposal to Develop Waller Creek from Waterloo Park to Town Lake Into the Nation's Premier Urban Environmental Park Austin, Texas

http://web.mac.com/jamesgstuart/iWeb/Site/Whitewater%20Trail_files/Big%20Picture.png

I don't know if the plan is feasible or not, but it certainly is unique and definitely ties in with Keep Austin Weird.




I like the Riverwalk idea like in San Antonio better with shop and restaurants down along the creek. If you wanna go white water rafting go down to Schlitterbahn don't get me wrong it's a cool idea but I don't think it's a good idea for the creek the water wouldn't be flowing fast enough for rapids.

[JAM]

I like the Riverwalk idea like in San Antonio better with shop and restaurants down along the creek. If you wanna go white water rafting go down to Schlitterbahn don't get me wrong it's a cool idea but I don't think it's a good idea for the creek the water wouldn't be flowing fast enough for rapids.

I'd have to agree. It is a cool idea, but it would probably only serve the desires of a small portion of the community. Many more people could be served by a Riverwalk style area, and more sales tax could be brought in to support the area.

[KevinFromTexas]

In the questionaire about what people wanted to see there, I said why not have both? Double the usefulness of it, and, make it so it's not a complete copy of the riverwalk which has been done several times by other cities.

[DougRockstead]

I like the idea too. When reading the article it looks as if the water would only get knocked up to the whitewater pace when needed, otherwise it would flow as normal... sounds like alot of fun. And you could probably still have all the bars and shops along the creek as well.