Waller Creek Flood Tunnel Update Thread

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I wish the state would allow ground floor retail and/or food in their new plans for their land.

There is relatively little you can do when an area closes completely after 5:00 in the afternoon.

I wonder if they'll tear down those parking garages along Trinity st/San Jacinto once the new parking facilities under the Congress Mall are built? That's such a dead area of downtown...I hope it becomes something lively eventually.

[architeckton]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

it is closed. I figured the new hospital would have a heliport just as busy.

The STAR Flight Director of Aviation said that the new hospital's heliport doesn't have a fully functioning refueling station yet so they are reluctant to fly there yet. Once the refueling facilities are operational, they intend to have a helicopter stationed there full time.

Source: Bee Cave Chamber of Commerce Meeting

[Austin1971]

WTF!

https://www.statesman.com/news/local...xhr0VftCTTMhI/

[Austin_ez_wider]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

WTF!

https://www.statesman.com/news/local...xhr0VftCTTMhI/

Thats why the inspection process is so important and worth spending money on.

[Jdawgboy]

You've got to be kidding me! How the hell did the contractor get away with so many structural issues over multiple years of work without constant city inspections? It was bad enough with the intake facility having to be rebuilt over an idiotic mistake. Personally I think the state could have waived the infraction considering that people could view the capitol from the top of it, but I understand why the city just decided to rebuild it. I couldn't see the article but bottom line is this could have easily been avoided and if someone within city government knew about this then there is a serious problem going on with the city. If someone could summarize what the article says it would be appreciated.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I couldn't see the article...

You can see Statesman paywall articles just like ABJ articles by hitting the Esc key while the article web page is loading.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

You've got to be kidding me! How the hell did the contractor get away with so many structural issues over multiple years of work without constant city inspections?

What multiple years of work? They caught the issue in 2013. Everything since then has been getting the contractor to fix it.

[eskimo33]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Personally I think the state could have waived the infraction considering that people could view the capitol from the top of it, but I understand why the city just decided to rebuild it.city. If someone could summarize what the article says it would be appreciated.

The City did approach Senator Watson about seeking a waiver from the capitol corridor, however he refused to forward the request to the ledge as a whole. Something about not wanting to set precedents for civic projects getting waivers from the corridors. I am not sure if someone pointed out the UT and the State itself has waivers so the precedent is already there, however I am sure that Senator Watson knows that.

[eskimo33]

Honestly the bigger threat to the tunnel (which no one is talking about), is the NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall precipitation revisions. As the Statesman article alludes to, the tunnel can barely hand the .01% annual chance (100-year) storm as it is. With the Atlas 14 revisions, the new .01% rainfall totals look really close to the .02% annual chance (500-year) storm.
The preliminary information looks like the flooding will stay in the creek, however all the park improvements in the creek are at jeopardy of being affected in the smaller storm events.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What multiple years of work? They caught the issue in 2013. Everything since then has been getting the contractor to fix it.

As I stated, I could not read the full article so only got to see the small blurb about it. The rest of my post was questioning and speculation hence why I asked for a summary. I also don't use a computer when I post just my cell. I've tried to esc when the page opens but it still blocks it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

As I stated, I could not read the full article so only got to see the small blurb about it. The rest of my post was questioning and speculation hence why I asked for a summary. I also don't use a computer when I post just my cell. I've tried to esc when the page opens but it still blocks it.

The full letter from the city was posted. I'm not sure if you'll be able to read this

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ek-Letter.html

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The full letter from the city was posted. I'm not sure if you'll be able to read this

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ek-Letter.html

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

Honestly the bigger threat to the tunnel (which no one is talking about), is the NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall precipitation revisions. As the Statesman article alludes to, the tunnel can barely hand the .01% annual chance (100-year) storm as it is. With the Atlas 14 revisions, the new .01% rainfall totals look really close to the .02% annual chance (500-year) storm.
The preliminary information looks like the flooding will stay in the creek, however all the park improvements in the creek are at jeopardy of being affected in the smaller storm events.

This is actually the crux of it, IMO. If the tunnel doesn't work, lots of real estate that the city'd hoped would be salvaged from the flood plain actually hasn't been. So does that endanger Palm Park and the Fairmont? The development of the Towne Place Apartments? Does that endanger the Waterloo Park rebuild? How much property tax could the city be potentially losing if the flood mitigation doesn't reclaim the land it was supposed to reclaim?

What a major clusterf***.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

This is actually the crux of it, IMO. If the tunnel doesn't work, lots of real estate that the city'd hoped would be salvaged from the flood plain actually hasn't been. So does that endanger Palm Park and the Fairmont? The development of the Towne Place Apartments? Does that endanger the Waterloo Park rebuild? How much property tax could the city be potentially losing if the flood mitigation doesn't reclaim the land it was supposed to reclaim?

What a major clusterf***.

Nobody (except the stupid Statesman article) said the "tunnel doesn't work".

The city's claim is that it will increase inspections/maintenance/repairs.

Additionally, there is a reduction (not elimination) in the the freeboard (the factor of safety above and beyond the capacity that was calculated as necessary to bring those properties out of the floodplain).

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Nobody (except the stupid Statesman article) said the "tunnel doesn't work".

Would you be satisfied if I said the tunnel "has lost 67.3% of [its] factor of safety?"

You can split hairs about what working or not working means, but the underlying point is that the city, now by its own admission in that letter you linked, is forced to accept a tunnel that is currently 67% a failure, and that can never be fully repaired. If the Fairmont (for argument's sake) is damaged in a catastrophic flood in Waller Creek that could otherwise have been mitigated by that tunnel, the city and the contractor both would have potential liabilities.

I feel pretty confident in calling that a major clusterf***.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Would you be satisfied if I said the tunnel "has lost 67.3% of [its] factor of safety?"

Sure, as long as you understand what that means.

Originally Posted by We vs us

You can split hairs about what working or not working means, but the underlying point is that the city, now by its own admission in that letter you linked, is forced to accept a tunnel that is currently 67% a failure,

Uh, numbers don't work that way.

It has 2 feet less freeboard in 24 foot tunnel.

Originally Posted by We vs us

and that can never be fully repaired.

It can't be brought up to quite the original spec, this is true.

It is still above the required (required by the intended purpose, not what the city required of the contractor) spec.

Originally Posted by We vs us

If the Fairmont (for argument's sake) is damaged in a catastrophic flood in Waller Creek that could otherwise have been mitigated by that tunnel, the city ... would have potential liabilities.

nope.

Originally Posted by We vs us

and the contractor both

Well, like they say, you can try and sue anybody. Not sure it would work.

Originally Posted by We vs us

I feel pretty confident in calling that a major clusterf***.

If it was a "major clusterfuck" the city wouldn't be going for a "nominal 10% diminution of value".

Look, it's in the financial best interests of the city to paint the situation as dire as possible, and they still call it nominal.

[Jdawgboy]

As far as major flood events (which has already and will continue to increase in amount of events and frequency) the city can build up natural riparian barriers which would slow the water down a bit. The challenge is making sure these natural barriers are adequately established. If they went in, designed and planted, then a major flood occures, all of that work and money would be washed away.

Its still a shame regardless. Decades spent planning for this, we were promised a tunnel that would do what it's supposed to do and we are not getting what was advertised. Plus the fact that not much can be done to fix the issue is very disappointing to say the least.

So here's an other question. Is this the contractor's fault, city's fault or a combination of the two? Or are these issues due to specific construction companies that were contracted to do the work basically doing crappy work? Are there any legal repercussions as a result or are they trying slide it under the carpet, if I may use that analogy?

[Jdawgboy]

Found the answers to my questions.

http://kxan.com/2018/03/07/lawsuit-f...unnel-builder/

http://kxan.com/2018/03/08/waller-cr...ea-businesses/

Also according to Adler, the City Council didn't know there were any problems with the construction.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

http://kxan.com/2018/03/08/waller-cr...ea-businesses/

I'm really looking for the source of this quote from "the city".

"The city claims the tunnel...won’t stand up to unusually large floods"

Since the legal filing doesn't indicate that. It states that it still has a positive safety factor. It will handle the volume of floods it was designed to handle (100 year events), which by definition are "unusually large". It will however require additional maintenance and inspections.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

So here's an other question. Is this the contractor's fault, city's fault or a combination of the two? Or are these issues due to specific construction companies that were contracted to do the work basically doing crappy work? Are there any legal repercussions as a result or are they trying slide it under the carpet, if I may use that analogy?

You know, you really should read the filing I linked

_If_ the city is to be believed (not proved yet), it's the contractors fault. Crappy work (not as designed/spec'ed).
Either $22M or forty something million dollars, so definitely repercussions.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

[Snip]

I'm not going to argue sentence by sentence with you. If you have special knowledge or education about drainage tunnels then you've won the argument. I'm just a dude trying to argue a somewhat sensible point of view on the internet.

Worth pointing out, though, that the KXAN reporting linked above actually supports my point -- that it's a bad scene for business owners who'd been relying on a functioning tunnel to make the flood situation better.