Waller Creek Flood Tunnel Update Thread

[the Genral]

I'm not sure why the intake needed to be 32' tall to begin with. Its sole purpose is to direct water into the tunnel and filter out as much debris as possible. Surely that purpose could have been accomplished at the 16' height restriction. It doesn't need to be fancy, and it most likely won't be needed for debris cstching for 363 days out of the year. They need to make a decision before the downstream projects get further delayed, that is if any of them are waiting for a completed tunnel system to break ground.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I'm not sure why the intake needed to be 32' tall to begin with. Its sole purpose is to direct water into the tunnel and filter out as much debris as possible. Surely that purpose could have been accomplished at the 16' height restriction. It doesn't need to be fancy, and it most likely won't be needed for debris cstching for 363 days out of the year. They need to make a decision before the downstream projects get further delayed, that is if any of them are waiting for a completed tunnel system to break ground.

This is a pretty good example of where a CVC can be counter-intuitive. The legislature should just move the CVC so that it preserves the view from the new observation deck. That's honestly a better vantage point than the non-existent one before.

[SkyPie]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

This is a pretty good example of where a CVC can be counter-intuitive. The legislature should just move the CVC so that it preserves the view from the new observation deck. That's honestly a better vantage point than the non-existent one before.

That's a good compromise solution. It seems quite insane to spends millions to fix a problem when zero dollar options exist.

[dhinaustin]

Completely agree. The view to the capital will be exceptional, actually enhanced from the top of the observation deck. Let's not spend all this time and money, seriously.

They do need to put a permanent fix into the project approval sign-off process before these projects begin. It's ridiculous that they don't find out the CVC has been violated until after the project is underway.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by dhinaustin

The view to the capital will be exceptional, actually enhanced from the top of the observation deck.

In an earlier post from March 2013, Kevin posted a link to an article in the American-Statesman that was basically a progress report, and it even mentioned back then

The above-ground amenities, including a 2½-story structure with a view of the Capitol, are expected to be completed in 2015.

It almost sounds like they planned all along to go above the height limit in order to have that view of the Capitol.

[Lurking in Austin]

Hi guys.

There is no simple solution to reducing the height of this building by 16ft.

If you really want to see the problem, go to the city's ftp site:
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/WPDRHHM/Wa...nSetandManual/

Look at volume 2 of the conformed plans.

S-301 (p19 of pdf):
This is a great section view of the facility. You can see the bar screens on the right that will collect the large debris from going into the tunnel. More importantly, note the trash rake/gripper hanging from below the ceiling beams. This device runs on a monorail around the perimeter of the intake screens and inside the building. I can only assume that the height of the monorail/gripper assembly was based on the anticipated size of debris to be collected. There also has to be enough height to allow the gripper to lift the debris over the edge of and into a trash container located inside the building.

I recall reading on a news report that the 32' building is 16' too tall. It may just be coincidence, but there is 32' from the top of the ground level finished floor (486') to the top of the roof deck (518'). If that is the 32' to which they are referring, there is no way to lower it 16' without a total reconstruction.

S-302 (p20 of pdf):
Another section view. Here you can see the second floor electrical room on the left. Where will that go if the structure is to be reduced by 16'?

A-301 (p236 of pdf):
Another section view of the intake facility. I knew planters were proposed up there, but the trellis structure I was unaware of. The height of this may be blocking the CVC over and above the structure described above.

Hopefully the 16' that is blocking the CVC is just this trellis, but somehow I doubt it.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Lurking in Austin

Hopefully the 16' that is blocking the CVC is just this trellis, but somehow I doubt it.

In an earlier article Mayor Leffingwell

said the current design is approximately five feet over the allowable height and is in an obscure corridor which may have led to the oversight.

Of the 16' overage, maybe the trellis part is five feet and the other 11 feet is the intake facility?

I don't know why this city has so much trouble with numbers.

[Jdawgboy]

The State should reevaluate the CVC's and remove the ones that are already partially blocked or have little viewing value. This is one of the ones that should go. Why should we have to pay millions of dollars to fix something that should be a non issue? I think the CVC's are beneficial and have shaped the skyline but there are too many and several are just not very practical in terms of viewing the capitol dome from a distance either due to trees, buildings in the neighborhoods or land elevation.

[Digatisdi]

Someone should write like a template for a letter or something to send to our state reps because this CVC issue is completely ridiculous. I might do it if I have time

[the Genral]

I met a guy yesterday who is working on the tunnel, he is responsible for the grouting on the cement lining of the tunnel. He told me the are working from both ends towards each other and the lining should be finished by December if not sooner. I asked him about the intake issue and why they couldn't just lop off the offending top 16'. He told me it would affect the integrity of the entire intake structure which extends down to the tunnel level, so basically the top portion supports the entire structure and removing it would cause the whole thing to collapse (think pyramid, without the top, the walls would fall inward on to themselves)...his words. So the entire intake will need to be redesigned and rebuilt from the tunnel level to the surface, hense the expense and at least a year to reconstruct, and that's after the bickering is done and liability is established before we'll even see a timeline for the work to begin. He said either way, he and the construction company is getting paid.
If all this is true, I don't see how the Mayor's claim that this will not stall the anticipated completion date is accurate, and I wonder if and when he will come out and concede to us and potential developers that we and they are in for a longer and more expensive delay then he expected.
I was told that as of today, both sides are aggressively denying liability, city vs developers (architects), and no one wants to pay for the oversight. I think it will take an act of Congress, literally, to solve this problem with any expediency.

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I met a guy yesterday who is working on the tunnel, he is responsible for the grouting on the cement lining of the tunnel. He told me the are working from both ends towards each other and the lining should be finished by December if not sooner. I asked him about the intake issue and why they couldn't just lop off the offending top 16'. He told me it would affect the integrity of the entire intake structure which extends down to the tunnel level, so basically the top portion supports the entire structure and removing it would cause the whole thing to collapse (think pyramid, without the top, the walls would fall inward on to themselves)...his words. So the entire intake will need to be redesigned and rebuilt from the tunnel level to the surface, hense the expense and at least a year to reconstruct, and that's after the bickering is done and liability is established before we'll even see a timeline for the work to begin. He said either way, he and the construction company is getting paid.
If all this is true, I don't see how the Mayor's claim that this will not stall the anticipated completion date is accurate, and I wonder if and when he will come out and concede to us and potential developers that we and they are in for a longer and more expensive delay then he expected.
I was told that as of today, both sides are aggressively denying liability, city vs developers (architects), and no one wants to pay for the oversight. I think it will take an act of Congress, literally, to solve this problem with any expediency.

The stupid part is that there was a recent AAS article that states the CVC is already being blocked by another government building. This whole exercise is completely pointless. Put an observation tower on top so people can see the capital and be done.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by MightyYoda

The stupid part is that there was a recent AAS article that states the CVC is already being blocked by another government building. This whole exercise is completely pointless. Put an observation tower on top so people can see the capital and be done.

I believe the view would still be blocked by a large tree and that building.

[The ATX]

The view could also be blocked by someone standing in front of you. Therefore the park should be closed to people.

[Lurking in Austin]

I'm not a structural engineer, so I don't know anything about the building falling in on itself if it were lowered. What I do know is that lowering this by more than a couple feet would require a complete redesign. That won't happen overnight. There are so many systems and equipment, in addition to the structural change, that will have to be completely rethought.

[corvairkeith]

This is happening right now, I'm sure some people will still say the flood tunnel is a waste of tax dollars.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I met a guy yesterday who is working on the tunnel, he is responsible for the grouting on the cement lining of the tunnel. He told me the are working from both ends towards each other and the lining should be finished by December if not sooner. I asked him about the intake issue and why they couldn't just lop off the offending top 16'. He told me it would affect the integrity of the entire intake structure which extends down to the tunnel level, so basically the top portion supports the entire structure and removing it would cause the whole thing to collapse (think pyramid, without the top, the walls would fall inward on to themselves)...his words. So the entire intake will need to be redesigned and rebuilt from the tunnel level to the surface, hense the expense and at least a year to reconstruct, and that's after the bickering is done and liability is established before we'll even see a timeline for the work to begin. He said either way, he and the construction company is getting paid.
If all this is true, I don't see how the Mayor's claim that this will not stall the anticipated completion date is accurate, and I wonder if and when he will come out and concede to us and potential developers that we and they are in for a longer and more expensive delay then he expected.
I was told that as of today, both sides are aggressively denying liability, city vs developers (architects), and no one wants to pay for the oversight. I think it will take an act of Congress, literally, to solve this problem with any expediency.

I guess we'll see. As you mentioned, this guy is hardly in impartial observer. It's in his financial interest for them to tear out a bunch of work and re-do it, in the most expensive way possible.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by MightyYoda

The stupid part is that there was a recent AAS article that states the CVC is already being blocked by another government building. This whole exercise is completely pointless. Put an observation tower on top so people can see the capital and be done.

Yes, the Downtown Austin Blog did a post on that article and included the below graphic from the Statesman. The blog post is titled "Why It’s Bull****: The Waller Creek Tunnel Inlet Is Too Tall" and the link is here: http://downtownaustinblog.org/2014/0...el-inlet-tall/



http://i1.wp.com/media.cmgdigital.co...zoom=1.5&w=400

[Jdawgboy]

Okay so let me get this straight, they are making a big deal over a CVC that actually angles down so people can see it from Red River St.? That's just plain dumb and why does the sight line have to be so far down where it meets the Capitol? As long as you can see the dome then it shouldn't matter. The sight line should be raised up to the base of the dome, that alone would not only remove the intake facility out but may even remove the other building out as well.

[ohhey]

Actually, if we are going to have CVCs, I definitely think it's important to preserve the view of the entire dome and drum. A glimpse of the upper dome alone is not a monumental view worth preserving. Might as well just get rid of the CVC if that's the view being preserved.

The issue with the intake facility is definitely the fault of the city and the designers of this project. It does, however, raise the question of whether an already obstructed CVC should be enforced if a new structure provides the public a better viewing vantage point. In this case, I think the answer is no, it shouldn't be enforced - especially considering the amount of tax payer money at risk here.

[austlar1]

Best I can tell, this intake structure blocks the view of the dome as seen from the front of the Brick Oven. Yes, that is a view worth preserving, damn the expense.